Table 2.

Electromyography (EMG) quality assessment scores (* Studies that did not require normalisation were rated using a 3 point scale instead of 4) as per Abboud et al. (2017) [13].

EMG Quality Check	Category												Score
Authors (year)	1.1	1.2	1.3	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.4	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.4	4	score (/3 * or /4)	score (%)
Arjmand et al. (2010) [41]	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	2	50
Burnett et al. (2004) [42]	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	4	100
Callaghan and Dunk 2002 [43]	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	2	50
Cholewicki et al. (1997) [44]	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	2	50
Dankaerts et al. (2009) [7]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	100
Hashemerad et al. (2009) [45]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	100
Hay et al. (2016) [46]	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	N/A	2 *	67
Kaigle et al. (1998) [20]	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	N/A	2 *	67
Kienbacher et al. (2016) [47]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	100
Lariviere et al. (2000) [6]	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	N/A	2 *	67
Liu et al. (2011) [48]	0	0	N/A	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	3 *	100
Luhring et al. (2015) [16]	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	3	75
Mayer et al. (2009) [49]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	25
McGill and Kippers 1994 [15]	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	3	75
Nairn et al. (2013) [50]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	100
Neblett et al. (2003) [51]	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	N/A	2 *	67
Ning et al. (2012) [52]	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	2	50
O’Sullivan et al. (2006) [17]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	100
Paquet et al. (1994) [53]	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	25
Peach et al. (1998) [35]	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	3	75
Sanchez-Zuriaga et al. (2015) [26]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	4	100