Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment for included studies

From: Effectiveness of interventions to promote healthy diet in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Study (Year) Randomisation method Allocation concealment Blinding Participation at 12 months Outcome assessment validity reported Intention to treat (ITT) analysis
Takahashi (2006) [27] Random numbers generated in Excel Not stated Partial. Nurse assessment was blinded 448/550 (81%) Yes No
Coates (1999) [28] Block randomisation Not stated Not stated 1,141/2,208 (52%) Yes No
Roderick (1997) [29] Pairs matched by region Not stated Not stated Intervention 86%; control 74% Yes Yes
Sacerdote (2006) [30] Random numbers generated by computer Yes Outcome assessors and participants stated to be blinded 2,977/3,179 (93%) Yes Yes
Stevens (2003) [31] Not stated Not stated Partial. Clinic staff conducting data collection were blinded Intervention 89%; control 85% Yes No
Kristal (2000) [32] Stratified by sex and age Not stated Not stated 1,205/1,459 (83%) Partial No
Baron (1990) [33] Not stated Not stated Not stated 329/368 (89%) Not stated No
Fries (2005) [34] Not stated Not stated Not stated 516/754 (68%) Yes No
Beresford (1997) [35] Table of random numbers Recruiters and potential participants blind to group allocation No 1,818/2,121 (86%) Yes No
Gann (2003) [36] Table of random numbers Not stated Not stated 177/213 (83%) Yes Yes