Table 4.
Quality of body of evidence based on the GRADE approach
| Outcome | Number of studies | Limitation | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Upgrade | Summary/quality of evidence |
| Jump distance | 1 RCT | No serious limitation | NA | No serious indirectness | −1 | None | +1 | High ⨁⨁⨁⨁ |
| Stability/postural control/balance | 2 RCTs23 25 | −1 | None | No serious indirectness | −1 | None | +1 | Moderate ⨁⨁⨁ |
| GRF | 2 RCTs1 24 | −1 | None | No serious indirectness | −1 | None | +1 | Moderate ⨁⨁⨁ |
| Knee kinematics | 2 RCTs1 22
1 blocked randomised design |
−1 | None | No serious indirectness | −1 | None | +1 | Moderate ⨁⨁⨁ |
All RCTs start as high quality. Assessment criteria: limitation: based on Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Downgraded by one level if more than one unclear. Inconsistency: unexplained heterogeneity across studies. indirectness: heterogeneity for participants, intervention or outcome measure in individual studies. imprecision: if no sample size justification and calculation: downgraded by one level. Publication bias. Upgrade: if statistically significant effect: upgraded by one level.16
GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; GRF, ground reaction force; RCT, randomised controlled trial.