| Selection | Performance | Detection | Drop-out | Funding | Food provision | Setting | Diet measurement |
---|
Singh 1992 [26] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | High | High | High |
Smith-Warner 2000 [27] | Unclear | Medium | Unclear | Low | Low | High | High | High |
Whybrow 2007 [23] | High | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | High | Low |
Weerts 2009 [30] | Medium | High | Unclear | High | Unclear | Medium | High | High |
Chistiensen 2013 [25] | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | High | High | High |
Basu 2010 [29] | Unclear | Medium | Low | Low | High | Low | High | High |
Peterson 2011 [28] | Low | Medium | Unclear | Low | High | Low | High | High |
Dow 2012 [24] | Medium | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | High | High |
- Selection bias: low = both method of randomisation and concealment described; medium one of randomisation and concealment described; high = inadequate method of randomisation (e.g. order in which enrolled). Performance bias: low participants blinded to intervention and outcome of weight loss; medium = participants unaware of potential weight loss; high = participants not blinded to group or of potential for weight loss. Detection bias: low = assessors blinded to intervention; high assessors not blinded. Drop-out: low = drop-outs described; high = drop-outs not described. Funding: low = non-industry funding; high = funding by food or vegetable producers. Setting: low = closed living environment (e.g. institution); high = free-living individuals; food provision: low = vegetable or fruits provided; medium = vouchers to buy vegetable or fruits; high = participants advised to eat more fruit or vegetables, but have to purchase themselves. Diet measurement: low = observed or bio-markers measured; high = self-report.