Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality assessment tool

From: Physical activity equivalent labeling vs. calorie labeling: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Num

Question item

Criteria

Answer

1

Is the research has been conducted in real world?

 

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

2

Is the randomization method described?

Age, Education, Socio-economic status, BMI

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

3

Are inclusion criteria have been mentioned?

Age, BMI, …

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

4

Are exclusion criteria have been mentioned?

Age, BMI, physical activity, dieting, Special diets such as vegetarian, pregnancy,…

At least, 2 exclusion criteria should be mentioned.

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

5

Is the study generalizable?

According to Race, BMI, Age

Students, Academic people

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

6

Are there any criteria to assess quality of participants’ responses?

At least one of these criteria shows quality assessment of responses:

 - Very quick answers

 - Uncompleted data related to outcome

 - Assessment of hunger, desire to eat, before food selection and the amount of total calorie intake (in experimental researches)

 - Including incentive for completeness

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

7

Is the questionnaire implemented in pilot phase?

Consumer views about menu diversity

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

8

Does the menu have enough variety?

According to carbohydrate, protein, and beverages (at least 1 sweetened beverages)

 - If one of the groups not included in the menu, it should be mentioned as high risk of bias.

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear

9

Are the differences of factors and their effects on primary outcome (question number 2) considered in statistical analysis?

Adjustment for age, education, socio-economic status, BMI

Low Risk of Bias

High Risk of Bias

Unclear