Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies using the Quality of Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) tool [37]

From: Do sex differences in reported weight loss intentions and behaviours persist across demographic characteristics and weight status in youth? A systematic review

  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
  1. Note: aN/A, information not available in article. For question 10, if the significance level for statistical tests was not provided, the item was graded as a ‘no’. For question 7, quality was assessed based on attempts to provide a rationale for response rates. For question 14, quality was assessed based on attempts to describe the non-responders relative to the responders. For question 16, if no analyses were proposed in the methods (i.e., prevalence and proportions proposed only), quality for presentation of results was deemed as N/A