Table 2.
Methodological quality assessment scores of each study
| Question | Scoring criteria | Assad et al.[25] | Zettergren et al.[22] | Pompeu et al.[21] | Mendes et al.[20] | Esculier et al.[19] | Mhatre et al.[23] | Hertz et al.[24] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion/exclusion criteria detailed |
1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
.5 |
1 |
1 |
| Participant characteristics detailed |
Number |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Age |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
| Sex |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
| Disease severity |
.5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
| Sample size justified |
1 = yes; 0 = no |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| Randomisation explained |
1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no |
na |
na |
1 |
na |
na |
na |
na |
| Research design clearly stated |
1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no |
.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| Exergaming sessions explained |
1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no |
.5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Baseline and post test data presented | 1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no | .5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
na = indicates not applicable.