“…Quality scores: As can be seen in the final column in Table 1, of the 24 studies included in this systematic review, the quality of four studies reached the highest quality score of '9' (Chasan-Taber et al, 2007;Fell et al, 2009;Owe et al, 2009;Pereira et al, 2007), six received an '8' (Borodulin et al, 2009;Haakstad et al, 2007;Hausenblas et al, 2011;Hinton et al, 2001;Schmid et al 2006;Treuth et al, 2005) ten a '7' (Cramp & Bray, 2009;Duncombe et al, 2009;Goodwin et al, 2000;Hausenblas et al, 2008;Lof and Forsum 2006;McParlin et al, 2010;Melzer et al, 2009;Poudevigne and Connor, 2005;Strenfeld et al, 1995;Symons Downs and Hausenblas, 2004). Only 1 study received a quality score of '6' (Clarke et al, 2005) and three received a '5', the lowest rated quality studies (Cioffi et al, 2010;Mottola & Campbell, 2003;Weallens et al, 2003).…”