Supplemental Table 2. Individual Scores for Each Item of the MERSQI and Overall GRADE Rating for All Included Studies
Source
MERSQI Items
GRADE Rating Study Design Sampling Type of Data
Validity of
Evaluation Data Analysis Outcomes
Total Points Almquist-
Tangen et al., 2013
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points 2.0
3 or more institutions. No response rate.
Points: 2.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
χ2 test for univariate relationships. Risks estimated by ORs.
Multivariate and binary logistic regression.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
13.5 Moderatea
Brown and Harries, 2015
Cross-sectional.
Points 1.0
3 or more institutions.
Response rate 69.2%. Points: 1.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Partial correlation and multivariable regression models. Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
11.5 Low
Cespedes et al., 2016
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points 2.0
One institution.
Response rate 49% (1046/2128).
Points: 1.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Multivariable linear regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
12.5 Low
Collings et al., 2017
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points 2.0
3 or more institutions.
Response rate 49%
(837/17,707).
Points: 2.0
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
χ2 test, ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3.0
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
13 Low
Diethelm et al., 2011
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points 2.0
One institution.
Response rate 78% (594/763).
Points: 1.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Energy partitioning models and
multivariable linear regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
12.5 Low
Fisher et al., 2014
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points 2.0
3 or more institutions.
Response rate 54.25%
(1303/2404).
Points: 2.5
Objective.
Points: 3
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Multivariable linear regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
15.5 Low
Hager et al., 2016
Cross-sectional.
Points 1.0
2 or more institutions.
Response rate 82.9% (240/290).
Points: 2.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Multivariable linear regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
12.5 Low
Klingenberg et al., 2013
Single-group cross-sectional.
Points: 1.0
3 or more institutions.
Response rate 14.9% (311/2211).
Points: 2.0
Objective.
Points: 3
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Multivariable linear regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
14 Moderatea
Kordas et al., 2009
Randomized controlled trial.
Points 3.0
3 or more institutions.
Response rate 96% (1444/1499).
Points: 3.0
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables.
Points: 1.0
Multivariable linear regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
15 Moderatea
Lampl and Johnson, 2011
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points: 2.0
One institution.
No response rate.
Points: 0.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables. Points:
1.0
Mixed-model analysis.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
11.5 Low
Mirsa et al., 2015
Randomized controlled trial.
Points 3.0
One institution.
Response rate 74.6% (56/75).
Points: 2.0
Objective.
Points: 3
Relationships with other variables. Points:
1.0
Descriptive statistics. t test and χ2 test for pretest/post-test.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3.0
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
16 High
Paul et al., 2011
Randomized controlled trial.
Points 3.0
One institution.
Response rate 69% (110/160).
Points: 1.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables. Points:
1.0
ANOVA and multiple linear and logistic regression models.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
12.5 Moderatea
Rose et al., 2016
Nonrandomized, 2 group. Points 2.0
One institution.
Response rate 45% (1807/4000).
Points: 1.5
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables. Points:
1.0
Descriptive statistics, latent class analysis, and models of best fit.
Appropriate statistical tests. Points: 3
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
12.5 Low
Taylor et al., 2017
Randomized controlled trial.
Points 3.0
One institution.
Response rate 86% (686/802).
Points: 2.0
Assessment by the study participant.
Points: 1.0
Relationships with other variables. Points:
1.0
Linear, mixed linear, mixed binary, mixed ordinal logistic, and Cox proportional hazards regression. Appropriate statistical tests. Points 3.0
General facts (i.e., demographics) and patient/health outcomes. Points: 4
14 High
aGRADE quality rating was upgraded because of objective measurements used and/or the dose-response relationship found between 1 or more variables of interest.
ANOVA, analysis of variance; DONALD, Dortmund Nutritional and Anthropometric Longitudinally Designed; FFQ, Food Frequency Questionnaire; GI, Glycemic Index; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; IDA, Iron deficiency anemia; SKOT, Småbørns Kost Og Trivsel; MERSQI, Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument; YHEI, Youth Healthy Eating Index.