The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kwan, Rick Yiu Cho; Salihu, Dauda; Lee, Paul Hong; Tse, Mimi; Cheung, Daphne Sze Ki; Roopsawang, Inthira; Choi, Kup Sze

doi:10.1186/s11556-020-00239-5

European Review of Aging and Physical Activity

Table 3 Risk of bias in individual studies using the PEDro scale

From: The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No	Authors	Year	Eligibility	Random allocation	Concealed	Baseline similarity	Blinding (P)	Blinding (T)	Blinding (A)	Dropout	ITT	Group comparison	Point measures and variability data	PEDro total score	Quality rating
1	Pinto et al.	2005	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
2	King et al.	2007	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
3	Kolt et al.	2007	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
4	King et al.	2008	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
5	Martinson et al.	2008	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
6	Laubach et al.	2009	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
7	Martinson et al.	2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
8	Kahlbaugh et al.	2011	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	2/10	Poor
9	Van Stralen et al.	2011	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
10	Peels et al.	2013	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	4/10	Fair
11	Bickmore et al.	2013	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
12	Irvine et al.	2013	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	4/10	Fair
13	King et al.	2013	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
14	Wijsman et al.	2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
15	Kim & Glanz	2013	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
16	Mendelson et al.	2014	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
17	Tabak et al.	2014	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
18	Tabak et al.	2014	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
19	Thompson et al.	2014	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
20	Vroege et al.	2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8/10	Good
21	Frederix et al.	2015	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
22	Maddison et al.	2015	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8/10	Good
23	Martin et al.	2015	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
24	Mouton et al.	2015	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
25	Van de Weegen et al.	2015	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Good
26	Broekhuizen et al.	2016	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8/10	Good
27	King et al.	2016	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
28	Muller et al.	2016	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
29	Parker et al.	2016	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	3/10	Poor
30	Thakkar et al.	2016	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
31	Thomsen et al.	2016	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6/10	Good
32	Demeyer et al.	2017	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
33	Krebs et al.	2017	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	4/10	Fair
34	Lyons et al.	2017	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
35	Nahm et al.	2017	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5/10	Fair
36	Alley	2018	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	4/10	Fair
37	Ellis et al.	2019	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	7/10	Good
38	Rowley et al.	2019	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	4/10	Fair

ITT Intention-to-treat

Back to article page

ISSN: 1861-6909

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com