Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of methodological quality rating

From: Patient engagement as a risk factor in personalized health care: a systematic review of the literature on chronic disease

Study Country Design Rationale described? Power calculation presented? Sample size calculations presented? Selection criteria described? Adequate concealment of randomization? Assessor blinded? Intention to treat analysis performed? Quality score Quality rating
Barlow et al.[31] UK Parallel Yes No No Yes Yes NR Yes 2 Low
Glasgow et al.[32] USA 3-arm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NR Yes 2 Low
Goeppinger et al.[33] USA Parallel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NR NA 3 High
Hibbard et al.[34] USA Parallel No No No Yes NR NR No 1 Low
Huang et al.[35] Taiwan 3-arm Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4 High
Lavery et al.[36] Ireland Parallel Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 High
Lorig et al. (2010)[37] USA Parallel No No No Yes NR NR Yes 2 Low
Lorig et al. (2009)[38] USA Parallel Yes No No Yes NR NR Yes 2 Low
Moriyama et al.[39] Japan Parallel Yes No No Yes NR NR No 3 High
Wolever et al.[40] USA Parallel Yes No No Yes NR Yes No 2 Low
  1. NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.