Table 2 

Quality assessment of included studies

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies
Percentage (n) Single modal studies Multimodal studies
SIGN criteria Poor Adequate Well NA Poor Adequate Well NA
Appropriate and clearly focused question — 64% (16) 36% (9) — — 76.9% (20) 23.1% (6) —
Randomization 24% (6) 52% (13) 24% (6) — 7.7% (2) 65.4% (17) 26.9% (7) —
Allocation concealment 28% (7) 56% (14) 16% (4) — 30.8% (8) 61.5% (16) 7.7% (2) —
Blinding 28% (7) 60% (15) 12% (3) — 30.8% (8) 69.2% (18) — —
Percentage of dropouts 20% (5) 12% (3) 68% (17) — 23.1% (6) 19.2% (5) 57.7% (15) —
Baseline similarities 4% (1) 28% (7) 68% (17) — 3.8% (1) 30.8% (8) 65.4% (17) —
Group differences 36% (9) 56% (14) 8% (2) — 46.2% (12) 50% (13) 3.8 % (1) —
Outcome reliability/validity — 20% (5) 80% (20) — 3.8% (1) 42.3% (11) 53.9% (14) —
Intention-to-treat analyses 36% (9) 12% (3) 52% (13) — 26.9% (7) 26.9% (7) 46.2% (12) —
Multisite similarities 28% (7) 4% (1) — 68% (17) 46.2% (12) — 3.8% (1) 50% (13)
Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies
EVAT criteria Poor Adequate Well NA Poor Adequate Well NA
Recruitment 16% (4) 76% (19) 8% (2) — 11.5% (3) 84.6% (22) 3.8%(1) —
Participation 24% (6) 52% (13) 24% (6) — 23.1% (6) 53.8% (14) 23.1% (6) —
Model validity 36% (9) 44% (11) 4% (1) 16% (4) 50% (13) 19.2% (5) 11.6% (3) 19.2% (5)