Table 1 Table demonstrating methodological quality scores for studies included in the literature review Outcome Controlled Total Clear Appropriate Sampling Sample Appropriate Data Variance Detailed Conclusion Author measures for /22 question design strategy described sample size analysis reported results supported robust confounding /1 Babladelis 15 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 (1978) 0.68 Brems & 17 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 Johnson (1989) 0.77 21 Cheng (2005a) 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.95 18 Cheng (2005b) 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0.82 Rubacha & 16 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 (2012) Dimitrovsky, 20 Levy-Shiff & 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.91 Perl (2000) Gianakos 21 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (2000) 0.95 Hirokawa, 18 Yagi, Miyata 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0.82 (2004) Huang, Zhu, Zheng, Zhang 19 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 & Shiomi 0.86 (2012)
Table 1 Table demonstrating methodological quality scores for studies included in the literature review Author Clear question Appropriate design Sampling strategy Sample described Outcome measures robust Appropriate sample size Data analysis Variance reported Controlled for confounding Detailed results Conclusion supported Total /22 /1 Babladelis (1978) 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 15 0.68 Brems & Johnson (1989) 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 17 0.77 Cheng (2005a) 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 0.95 Cheng (2005b) 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 18 0.82 & Rubacha (2012) 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 16 Dimitrovsky, Levy-Shiff & Perl (2000) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 20 0.91 Gianakos (2000) 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 0.95 Hirokawa, Yagi, Miyata (2004) 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 18 0.82 Huang, Zhu, Zheng, Zhang & Shiomi (2012) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 19 0.86