Skip to main content

Table 3 Overview of the quality assessment

From: The effectiveness of attentional bias modification for substance use disorder symptoms in adults: a systematic review

Authors, year Reporting (0–11) External validity (0–3) Internal validity—bias (0–7) Internal validity—confounding (0–7) Power (0–1) Total (0–29) Adjusted totala (0–26)
Attwood et al., 2008 [21] 8 0 5 4 0 17 (58.6%) 14 (53.9%)
Begh et al., 2015 [22] 6 1 7 4 1 19 (65.5%)
Charles et al., 2015 [37] 10 0 4 1 0 15 (51.7%) 12 (46.2%)
Cox et al., 2015 [35] 9 1 5 3 0 18 (62.1%)
Elfeddali et al., 2016 [23] 9 1 6 4 1 21 (72.4%)
Fadardi and Cox, 2009 [13] 9 0 5 3 0 17 (58.6%)
Field and Eastwood, 2005 [24] 8 1 5 3 0 17 (58.65) 14 (53.9%)
Field et al., 2007 [33] 8 1 7 2 0 18 (62.1%) 15 (57.7%)
Kerst and Waters, 2014 [25] 11 0 6 4 0 21 (72.4%) 18 (69.2%)
Lee and Lee, 2015 [26] 10 1 7 5 0 23 (79.3%) 20 (76.9%)
Lopes et al., 2014 [34] 10 2 5 3 0 20 (69.0%)
Mayer et al., 2016 [27] 7 0 5 4 0 16 (55.2%)
McGeary et al., 2014 [28] 7 1 3 1 0 12 (41.45) 9 (34.6%)
McHugh et al., 2010 [29] 7 0 4 4 0 15 (51.7%) 12 (46.2%)
Schoenmakers et al., 2007 [30] 10 0 5 4 0 19 (65.5%) 16 (61.5%)
Schoenmakers et al., 2010 [31] 8 1 7 6 0 22 (75.9%)
Wiers et al., 2015 [36] 9 1 3 3 0 16 (55.2%)
Ziaee et al., 2016 [32] 8 0 5 3 1 17 (58.6%)
  1. aStudies without follow-up assessment were in first instance scored in favour of their quality, i.e. they received a ‘1’ score on the three follow-up measurements questions. This column represents the adjusted scores after the three follow-up measurement questions were excluded