Table 5.

Methodological quality appraisal

		Orchard et al. [7]	Meisser et al. [8]	Noehren et al. [11]	Ferber et al. [12]	Phinyomark et al. [20]	Foch et al. [21]	Foch and Milner [22]	Foch and Milner [23]	Grau et al.. [24]	Hein et al. [25]	Miller at al. [26]a	Miller et al. [27]a	Noehren et al. [28]
1	The purpose of the study was clearly stated	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
2	The study design was appropriate	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
3	The study detected sample biases (No adds to the total score)	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
4	Measurement biases were detected in the study (No adds to the total score)	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
5	The sample size was stated	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
6	The sample was described in detail	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
7	The sample size was justified	-	-	+	+	-	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	+
8	The outcomes were clearly stated and relevant to the study	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
9	The method of measurement was described sufficiently	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
10	The measures used were reliable	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
11	The measures used were valid	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
12	The results were reported in terms of statistical significance	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
13	The analysis methods used were appropriate	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
14	Clinical importance was reported	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	+	-	+	+	+
15	Missing data was reported where appropriate	-	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-	-	-
16	Conclusions were relevant and appropriate given the methods and results of the study	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
	Study Results
	Total CAT score /16	10	10	10	11	10	10	9	10	11	9	10	10	11
	Total CAT %	62.50	62.50	62.50	68.75	62.50	65.20	56.25	62.50	68.75	56.25	62.50	62.50	68.75

Abbreviations: CAT Critical appraisal tool

^a study conducted on runners who ran to fatigue