Table 1.
Quality Appraisal Checklist Results
| Cordingley 2016 | DeMatteo 2014 | DeMatteo 2015 | Gall 2004a | Gall 2004b | Grabowski 2017 | Hinds 2016 | Kozlowski 2013 | Kurowski 2017 | Leddy 2010 | Leddy 2011 | Manikas 2016 | Moore 2016 | Slobounov 2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did the study follow a prospective design? (1=yes) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Was a rationale regarding exertional testing mode provided by the authors? (1=yes) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Was a rationale regarding exertional testing protocol type provided by the authors? (1=yes) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Has the protocol been shown to be reliable or valid, either directly or through previous research? (1=yes) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Were funding sources or lack thereof described? (1=yes) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Was acknowledgment of conflict of interests or lack thereof provided? (1=yes) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Was evaluating physiologic response to exertion a primary purpose for the study (i.e. highly relevant for the purpose of the systematic review vs indirectly relevant)? (1=yes) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Were there any significant risks of bias concerns relative to the outcomes of interest for this systematic review?* (1=no) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Were potential confounding factors discussed? (1= yes) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Were appropriate statistical analyses used? (1=yes) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 6 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 5 |
This table provides the individual ratings for each included study relative to the quality appraisal form created by the authors of this systematic review. It should be noted, that this set of questions was generated for the specific purposes of the current systematic review. Therefore, a lower score does not necessarily indicate a poorer quality study in general, but rather lower direct relevancy or lower level quality of study for the purposes of this systematic review.
Criteria based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool retrieved April 10, 2017 from http://handbook.cochrane.org. It should be noted, that this set of questions was generated for the specific purposes of the current systematic review. Therefore, a lower score does not necessarily indicate a poorer quality study in general, but rather lower direct relevancy or study design for the purposes of this systematic review.