Table 1.
TESTEX methodological quality assessment
| Studies | Criteria | Total TESTEX Point | Methodological quality |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |||
| Gidu et al., 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 | Excellent |
| Souglis et al., 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | Excellent |
| Harry-Leite et al., 2022 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | Good |
| Viran&Canlı, 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | Good |
| Achilleopoulos et al., 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | Moderate |
| Beydağı & Talu, 2021 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Good |
| Antohe et al., 2020 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | Moderate |
| Domeika et al., 2020 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | Good |
| Rhodes et al., 2020 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | Good |
| Zacharakis et al., 2020 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | Good |
| Yoo et al., 2018 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 11 | Good |
| De Vasconcelos et al., 2020 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 | Good |
| Ondra et al., 2017 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | Good |
| Moreria et al., 2017 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | Moderate |
| Winter et al., 2014 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | Moderate |
| Zouita et al., 2013 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | Good |
| Romero-Franco et al., 2013 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | Good |
| Nikolaos et al., 2012 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | Moderate |
| Evangelos et al., 2012 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | Moderate |
TESTEX scale criteria: 1; Eligibility criteria specified (1 point), 2; Randomization specified (1 point), 3; Allocation concealment (1 point), 4; Groups similar at baseline (1 point), 5; Blinding of assessor (1 point), 6; No point – if withdrawals are >15%, 1 Point – if adherence>85%, 1 Point – if adverse events are reported, 1 Point – if exercise attendance is reported, Total possible (3 point), 7; Intention-to-treat analysis (1 point), 8; 1 Point – if between-group statistical comparisons are reported for the primary outcome measure of interest, 1 Point – if between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one secondary outcome measure, Between-group statistical comparisons reported (2 point, 9; Point measures and measures of variability for all reported outcome measures (1 point), 10; Activity monitoring in control groups (1 point), 11; Relative exercise intensity remained constant (1 point), 12; Exercise volume and energy expenditure (1 point). Quality points; < 4 as “poor”, 4–7 as “moderate”, 8–11 as “good” and > 11 as excellent