The parent–child relationship and adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies

BMC Public Health

Table 3 Results of methodological quality assessment of included studies

Domain	1				2		3			4		5	6				No. biases
Criterion	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	No. biases
Barnes et al., 2000	+	+	?	+	+	±	±	+	+	±	+	+	±	+	+	±	0
Danielsson et al., 2011	+	+	+	+	+	NA	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	+	0
Mogro-Wilson, 2008	+	+	?	+	+	NA	+	+	±	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	0
Kuntsche et al., 2009	+	+	?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	±	+	±	+	+	+	0
Latendresse et al., 2008	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	+	0
Shelton & Van den Bree, 2010	+	+	?	+	+	NA	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	0
Simons-Morton, 2004	±	+	+	+	+	NA	+	+	±	+	±	NA	±	NA	+	+	0
Van der Vorst et al., 2006	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	0
Wu et al., 2006	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	NA	±	NA	+	+	0
Aseltine et al., 2000	+	+	?	+	?	±	+	+	±	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	1
Chuang et al., 2005	+	+	-	+	±	±	+	+	+	+	±	+	-	+	+	+	1
Cookston & Finlay, 2006	+	+	?	±	?	NA	+	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	1
Droomers et al., 2003	+	+	+	?	+	+	+	+	+	±	±	+	±	+	+	+	1
Eisenberg et al., 2008	+	+	+	+	±	NA	+	+	+	+	±	+	-	+	+	+	1
Ennett et al., 2001	±	+	-	+	+	NA	+	+	+	±	±	+	±	+	+	+	1
Flory et al., 2004	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	±	+	1
Hung et al., 2009	+	+	?	+	±	NA	+	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	1
Kosterman et al., 2000	+	+	?	+	+	+	±	+	-	+	±	+	±	+	+	±	1
Paschall et al., 2004	+	+	?	+	?	NA	+	+	±	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	1
Andrews et al., 1997	±	-	NA	-	?	±	+	+	+	±	+	+	±	+	+	+	2
Branstetter et al., 2011	±	±	?	+	?	NA	+	+	+	+	±	+	-	+	+	+	2
Crawford & Novak, 2002	-	-	?	+	?	NA	+	+	±	+	±	+	+	+	?	+	2
Donohew et al., 1999	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	±	+	±	±	+	+	+	+	2
Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2004	+	+	?	±	?	NA	+	+	±	+	±	+	-	?	+	-	2
Gutman et al., 2011	+	±	-	+	±	±	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	±	2
Cohen et al., 1994	±	±	?	+	?	±	±	+	+	±	±	+	+	+	±	-	3
Horton & Gil, 2008	±	+	?	-	+	-	+	+	±	±	?	+	-	+	+	+	3
Adrados, 1995	+	+	?	-	-	NA	-	?	?	-	?	?	-	+	?	-	6

+ = “yes” (2), ± = “partly” (1), - = “no” (0), ? = “unsure” (0), NA = “not applicable”.
Domain: 1= study participation; 2= study attrition; 3= predictor measurement; 4= outcome measurement, 5=confounding measurement, 6= analysis
Criteria: A to P as in Table 1.
If ≤50% of the maximum score for a possible bias was obtained, the bias was scored as 1 for the domain concerned.
High quality is defined as the number of biases is 0.

ISSN: 1471-2458