Table 6.
Critical appraisal scores, Kennelly [55] ratings, and ROB assessment based on modified Downs and Black [49]
| Study author (year) | Critical appraisal score (out of 21) | Kennelly rating | Risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|
| Achenbach et al. (2019) [95] | 16 | Good | Low |
| Aragon et al. (2012) [101] | 15 | Good | Low |
| Armstrong & Greig (2018) [104] | 12 | Fair | Low |
| Attenborough et al. (2017) [97] | 14 | Fair | High |
| Barber Foss et al. (2012) [85] | 13 | Fair | High |
| Beynnon et al. (2001) [61] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Blokland et al. (2017) [62] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Brumitt et al. (2019) [94] | 16 | Good | Low |
| Cheng et al. (2019) [63] | 12 | Fair | Low |
| Chorba et al. (2010) [64] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Devan et al. (2004) [65] | 10 | Poor | Low |
| Edouard et al. (2013) [96] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Emery et al. (2005) [67] | 12 | Fair | High |
| Emery & Meeuwisse (2006) [66] | 12 | Fair | High |
| Faude et al. (2006) [68] | 15 | Good | Low |
| Hägglund & Waldén (2016) [69] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Hill et al. (2004) [102] | 9 | Poor | High |
| Hopper et al. (1995) [98] | 15 | Good | Low |
| Hopper (1997) [99] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Koenig & Puckree (2015) [70] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Kofotolis & Kellis (2007) [86] | 17 | Good | Low |
| Landis et al. (2018) [71] | 12 | Fair | High |
| McCann et al. (2018) [72] | 14 | Fair | High |
| Myer et al. (2008) [73] | 12 | Fair | Low |
| Ness et al. (2017) [74] | 13 | Fair | Low |
| Nilstad et al. (2014) [75] | 17 | Good | Low |
| Niyonsenga & Phillips (2013) [76] | 16 | Good | Low |
| O’Kane et al. (2017) [77] | 15 | Good | Low |
| Östenberg & Roos (2000) [78] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Payne et al. [93] | 12 | Fair | High |
| Plisky et al. (2006) [87] | 16 | Good | Low |
| Räisänen et al. (2018) [79] | 16 | Good | Low |
| Shanley et al. (2011) [103] | 16 | Good | Low |
| Shimozaki et al. (2018) [88] | 13 | Fair | High |
| Smith et al. (2005) [100] | 13 | Fair | Low |
| Söderman et al. (2001) [80] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Steffen et al. (2016) [81] | 12 | Fair | Low |
| Sugimoto et al. (2018) [82] | 12 | Fair | Low |
| van der Worp et al. (2012) [89] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Vauhnik et al. (2008) [90] | 13 | Fair | Low |
| Walbright et al. (2017) [91] | 12 | Fair | High |
| Warren et al. (2019) [83] | 13 | Fair | Low |
| Watson et al. (2017) [84] | 14 | Fair | Low |
| Yentes et al. (2014) [92] | 10 | Poor | Low |
Modified Kennelly [55] rating determined by raw critical appraisal score (out of 21) to determine the overall methodological quality of each study as either poor (≤ 10), fair (11–14), or good (≥ 15). Risk of bias rating was determined by internal validity subset items on the Downs and Black checklist [49] (out of 6) as either low (≥ 4) or high (≤ 3)