Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 8;51(23):1679–1687. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097383

Table 3.

GRADE summary of findings table

Summary of results Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Follow-up Number of participants(trials) SMD
(95% CI)
Design Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Quality
Short term 385 (6 trials) −0.28 (−0.49 to −0.08) Limitations* No inconsistency No indirectness Imprecision† Low
⨁⨁◯◯
Medium term 173 (3 trials) −0.59 (−1.03 to −0.15) Limitations* No inconsistency No indirectness Imprecision† Low
⨁⨁◯◯
Long term 345 (5 trials)  0.01 (−0.39 to 0.41) Limitations* Inconsistency‡ No indirectness Imprecision† Very low
⨁◯◯◯
Sensitivity analysis
Short term 215 (3 trials) −0.27 (−0.54 to −0.05) No limitations No inconsistency No indirectness Imprecision† Moderate
⨁⨁⨁◯
Medium term  40 (1 trials) −0.32 (−0.95 to 0.31) No limitations Inconsistency§ No indirectness Imprecision† Low
⨁⨁◯◯
Long term 215 (3 trials) 0.13 (−0.14 to 0.40) No limitations No inconsistency No indirectness Imprecision† Moderate
⨁⨁⨁◯

*Lack of blinding of participants and personnel, attrition bias, unable to adequately assess selection bias risk.

†<400 participants for each outcome.

‡Large statistical heterogeneity; I2=70%.

§Only single trial available, <400 participants therefore downgraded for inconsistency and imprecision.

Short term, ≤3 months; medium term, >3 and <12 months; long term, ≥12 months.

High quality: further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Very low quality: we are uncertain about the estimate.

GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; SMD, standardised mean difference.