Table 3.
Risk of bias assessment of cohort and cross-sectional studies
Article |
Study design |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Accurate description rehab. |
Men–women ratio |
Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Åhlén et al54 |
RC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
Good |
Ali et al51 |
CS |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
? |
− |
? |
+ |
− |
Questionable |
Biernat et al40 |
PC |
− |
− |
− |
− |
? |
? |
? |
− |
+ |
+ |
Poor |
Boszotta et al41 |
PC |
− |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
? |
? |
− |
− |
? |
Poor |
Clark et al52 |
CS |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
? |
? |
− |
+ |
Questionable |
Czamara et al42 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
Good |
Czaplicki et al46 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
? |
− |
− |
− |
Questionable |
Hill et al43 |
PC |
− |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
− |
? |
− |
− |
Poor |
Howell et al21 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
− |
Good |
Janssen et al9 |
CS |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
? |
Good |
Janssen et al ref44 |
PC |
− |
+ |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
− |
Good |
Jenny et al47 |
PC |
− |
+ |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
− |
− |
+ |
Good |
Karikis et al48 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
− |
− |
+ |
Good |
Koutras et al49 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
− |
− |
− |
Questionable |
Królikowska et al53 |
CS |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
− |
+ |
− |
+ |
− |
Questionable |
Srinivas et al50 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
− |
− |
− |
Questionable |
Toanen et al56 |
RC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
− |
− |
+ |
Questionable |
Trojani et al55 |
RC |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
− |
Good |
Zaffagnini et al45 |
PC |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
− |
+ |
+ |
+ |
− |
+ |
Good |
CS, cross-sectional study; PC, prospective cohort study; RC, retrospective cohort study; rehab., rehabilitation.