Quality Criteria | Battle (1984) USA [33] | Constantino & Bricker (1996) USA [34] | Constantino et al. (2001) USA [35] | De Groot et al. (2007; 2010) | Farberow (1992) USA [36] | Hazell & Lewin (1993) Australia [43] | Kovac & Range (2000) USA [37] | Pfeffer et al. (2002) USA [38] | Sandor et al. (1994) USA [39] | Wittouck et al. (2014) Belgium [44] | Zisook et al. (2018) USA [40] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Selection bias | |||||||||||
 Representativeness | Not likely | Not likely | Not likely | Somewhat likely | Somewhat likely | Somewhat likely | Somewhat likely | Somewhat likely | Can’t tell | Not likely | Not likely |
 Percentage agreed | Can’t tell | 80–100% | Can’t tell | < 60% | Can’t tell | 60–79% | 60–79% | 60–79% | Can’t tell | 80–100% | Can’t tell |
 Rating | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak |
B. Study design | |||||||||||
 Study design type | Other: 3 groups comparison | RCT | RCT | RCT | Cohort analytic | Case-control | RCT | RCT | Cohort analytic | RCT | RCT |
 Described as randomized? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
 Method of randomization described? | N.a. | No | Yes | Yes | N.a. | N.a. | No | Yes | N.a. | Yes | Yes |
 Method appropriate? | N.a. | No | Yes | Yes | N.a. | N.a. | No | Yes | N.a. | Yes | Yes |
 Rating | Weak | Strong | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
C. Confounders | |||||||||||
 Pre-intervention differences? | Can’t tell | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
 Percentage confounders controlled for | Can’t tell | N.a. | N.a. | 80–100% (most) | Can’t tell | 80–100% | 60–79% (some) | 80–100% (most) | 80–100% | 80–100% | < 60% (few or none) |
 Rating | Weak | Strong | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Strong | Weak |
D. Blinding | |||||||||||
 Outcome assessors were blinded? | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | No | Can’t tell | Yes | Can’t tell | No | Yes |
 Participants were blinded? | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Yes | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Yes |
 Rating | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong |
E. Data collection methods | |||||||||||
 Valid measures? | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
 Reliable measures? | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
 Rating | Weak | Strong | Strong | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong |
F. Withdrawals and drop-outs | |||||||||||
 Numbers and reasons reported per group? | Yes | Can’t tell | No | Yes | Can’t tell | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
 Percentage completing study? | N.a. | 80–100% | 60–79% | 80–100% | Can’t tell | 80–100% | 60–79% | < 60% | 80–100% | 80–100% | < 60% |
 Rating | N.a. | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak |
 Total A-F: | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | MODERATE | MODERATE | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK |
 Number of ‘strong’ ratings | 0/6 | 4/6 | 3/6 | 4/6 | 0/6 | 1/6 | 2/6 | 3/6 | 3/6 | 4/6 | 3/6 |
G. Intervention integrity | |||||||||||
 Percentage participants received intervention? | Can’t tell | 80–100% | 60–79% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 60–79% | 80–100% | Can’t tell | 80–100% | 60–79% |
 Intervention consistency measured? | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Yes |
 Confounding unintended intervention? | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell |
H. Analyses | Â | Â | |||||||||
 Unit of allocation | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual (family) | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual (family) | Individual | Individual | Individual |
 Unit of analysis | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual |
 Appropriate statistical methods? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
 Analysis by intention-to-treat status | No | Can’t tell | No | Yes | No | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | No | Can’t tell | No | Can’t tell |