Table 1

Quality assessment per study
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Abbott 2009 [78] 0 0 1 1 0 1 3
Boehm 2011 [73] 0 1 1 1 0 1 4
Buchanan 2010 [56] 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Burton 2004 [64] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Cheavens 2006 [76] 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
Emmons 2006 study 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Emmons 2006 study 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Fava 1998 [82] 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
Fava 2005 [83] 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Feldman 2012 [60] 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Frieswijk 2005 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gander 2012 [74] 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
Goldstein 2007 [84] 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Grant 2009 [79] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grant 2012 [82] 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
Green 2006 [33] 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Hurley 2012 [61] 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
King 2001 [66] 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
Kremers 2006 [57] 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
Layous 2012 [75] 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
Lichter 1980 study 2 [80] 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Luthans 2008 [65] 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
Luthans 2010 study 1 [72] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Lyubomirsky 2006 study 2 [58] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Lyubomirsky 2011 [67] 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
Martinez 2010 [68] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Mitchell 2009 [69] 1 1 1 1 0 1 5
Page 2012 [62] 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Peters 2010 [70] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Quoidbach 2009 [59] 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Schueller 2012 [63] 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
Seligman 2005 [30] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Seligman 2006 study 1 [51] 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Seligman 2006 study 2 [51] 0 1 1 0 1 0 3
Shapira 2010 [55]; Mongrain 2011 [53]; Sergeant 2011 [54]; Mongrain 2012 [52] 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
Sheldon 2002 [32] 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Sheldon 2006 [34] 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Spence 2007 [81] 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Wing 2006 [71] 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Total 7 23 26 27 14 3 100

Index:

1 = Randomization concealment.

2 = Blinding of subjects.

3 = Baseline comparability.

4 = Power analysis or N>=50.

5 = Completeness of follow up data.

6 = Intention-to-treat analysis.

Bolier et al.

Bolier et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:119   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-119

Open Data