Table 1.

Methodological quality of the included studies, according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) (n = 45).

Study	Risk of bias			Applicability		Total (5 points)
	Patient selection	Index test	Flow/timing	Patient selection	Index test
McKay et al.22 2017	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	3
Decostre et al.23 2015	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Harlinger et al.24 2015	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Molenaar et al.25 2011	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Riemann et al.26 2010	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Kim et al.27 2009	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Werle et al.28 2009	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	3
Jansen et al.29 2008	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Meldrum et al.30 2007	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Eek et al.31 2006	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	3
Hughes et al.32 1999	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Boatright et al.33 1997	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Andrews et al.34 1996	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Danneskiold-Samsøe at al.35 2009	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	4
Stoll et al.36 2000	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Hogrel et al.37 2007	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Bohannon38 1997	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Holm et al.39 2008	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Hughes et al.40 1999	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Andersen and Henckel41 1987	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Backman et al.16 1995	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	3
Crosby et al.42 1994	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	3
Mathiowetz et al.43 1985	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Phillips et al.44 2000	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
The National Isometric Muscle Strength (NIMS) Database Consortium45 1996	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Beenakker et al.46 2001	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	3
Sunnegardh et al.47 1988	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	3
Backman et al.17 1989	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Lannersten et al.48 1993	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	Unclear	2
Murray et al.49 1985	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Rice et al.50 1989	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Gilbertson and Barber-Lomax51 1994	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Moraux et al.52 2013	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Cagnie et al.53 2007	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Peolsson et al.54 2001	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
Vernon et al.55 1992	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Garcés et al.56 2002	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Chiu et al.57 2002	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Jordan et al.58 1999	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Salo et al.59 2006	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Paalanne et al.60 2009	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
Nordin et al.61 1987	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Frontera et al.62 1991	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Ivey et al.63 1985	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	2
Lundgren et al.64 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
Wiggin et al.65 2006	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4

Yes, low risk of bias; No, high risk of bias; Unclear, unclear risk of bias.