Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality assessment of quantitative studies using STROBE criteria [20].

From: Determinants of Food Choice in Athletes: A Systematic Scoping Review

STROBE criteria

Birkenhead [36]a

Tesema et al. [27]

Pelly et al. [25]

Thurecht et al. [30]

Pelly et al. [29]

Blennerr-hassett et al. [28]

Thurecht et al. [32]

Stickler et al. [31]

Title and abstract

1

Design in title

  

*

*

*

*

*

*

2

Informative abstract

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Introduction

3

Rationale

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

4

Specific objectives

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Methods

5

Study design

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

6

Setting

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

7

Participants

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

8

Variables

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

9

Data source

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

10

Bias

        

11

Study size

  

*

*

  

*

*

12

Quantitative variables

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

13

Statistical methods

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

14

Subgroups & interactions

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

15

Missing data

        

16

Sampling strategy

NA

N/A

NA

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

N/A

17

Sensitivity analysis

        

Results

18

Participants

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

19

Non-participation

        

20

Flow diagram

        

21

Descriptive data

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

22

Missing data

*

  

N/A

N/A

*

 

*

23

Outcome events

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

24

Confounders

        

25

Category boundaries

N/A

N/A

NA

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

*

26

Risk

N/A

N/A

NA

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

N/A

27

Other analyses

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

Discussion

28

Key results

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

29

Limitations

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

30

Interpretation

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

31

Generalisability

*

  

*

*

*

*

*

Other information

32

Funding

  

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

Total score

20

8

20

22

21

22

22

22

  1. Bold values indicate total score of quality based on the sum of the number of items that meet the reporting criteria for each study
  2. * = addressed by authors; P = partially addressed by authors; N/A = not applicable
  3. aMasters thesis
  4. 1. Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract
  5. 2. Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found
  6. 3. Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported
  7. 4. State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses
  8. 5. Present key elements of study design early in the paper
  9. 6. Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection
  10. 7. Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants
  11. 8. Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable
  12. 9. For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group
  13. 10. Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias
  14. 11. Explain how the study size was arrived at
  15. 12. Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why
  16. 13. Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding
  17. 14. Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions
  18. 15. Explain how missing data were addressed
  19. 16. Describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy
  20. 17. Describe any sensitivity analyses
  21. 18. Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study, e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included, completing follow-up, and analysed
  22. 19. Give reasons for non-participation at each stage
  23. 20. Consider use of a flow diagram
  24. 21. Give characteristics of study participants (e.g., demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders
  25. 22. Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest
  26. 23. Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures
  27. 24. Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included
  28. 25. Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized
  29. 26. Consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period
  30. 27. Report other analyses done, e.g., analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses
  31. 28. Summarise key results with reference to study objectives
  32. 29. Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias
  33. 30. Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence
  34. 31. Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results
  35. 32. Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based