Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies using the Quality of Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) tool [37]
| Â | Calderon et al. [18] | Childress et al. [24] | Davis & Lambert [25] | French et al. [46] | Kilpatrick et al. [19] | Koff & Rierdan [45] | Krowchuk et al. [23] | McVey et al. [20] | Page et al. [49] | Phelps et al. [40] | Rafiroiu et al. [43] | Serdula et al. [39] | Shisslak et al. [48] | Shisslak et al. [44] | Stevens et al. [41] | Story et al. [47] | Story et al. [21] | Yost et al. [38] | Zullig et al. [42] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Were the aims/objectives of the study clear? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2. Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)? | Y | N/Aa | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3. Was the sample size justified? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
4. Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
5. Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
6. Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation? | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
7. Were measures undertaken to address and categorize non-responders? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
8. Were the weight intentions and weight strategies measured appropriate to the aims of the study? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
9. Were the weight intentions and weight strategies measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialed, piloted or published previously? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y |
10. Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? (eg, p values, CIs) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
11. Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
12. Were the basic data adequately described? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
13. Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias? | N | Y | N/A | N | N | N/A | N | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N |
14. If appropriate, was information about non-responders described? | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
15. Were the results internally consistent? (whether the numbers added up’, and ‘whether missing numbers were acknowledged or described’) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
16. Were the results for the analyses described in the methods, presented? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N/A | Y | Y | Y | N/A | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
17. Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
18. Were the limitations of the study discussed? | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
19. Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors’ interpretation of the results? | N/A | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N/A |
20. Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained? | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y |