Table 3.
Quality assessment “QualSyst” (Kmet et al., 2004).
| Study | Question described | Appropriate study design | Appropriate participant selection | Characteristics described | Random allocation | Researchers blinded | Participants blinded | Outcome measures well defined and robust to bias | Sample size appropriate | Analytic methods well described | Estimate of variance reported | Controlled for confounding | Results reported in detail | Conclusion supported by results | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armstrong et al. (1995) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Moderate |
| Au et al. (2019) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Bongers et al. (2016) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Boot et al. (2006) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Castle et al. (2013) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Weak |
| Dawson et al. (1994) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Moderate |
| Fitzgerald et al. (1990) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Moderate |
| Forsyth et al. (2019) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Gass et al. (1988) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Hopman et al. (1993) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Griggs et al. (2015a) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Griggs et al. (2017a) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Griggs et al. (2017b) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Hagobian et al. (2004) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Iturricastillo et al. (2018) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Petrofsky (1992) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Weak |
| Price and Campbell (1997) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Price and Campbell (1999a) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Price and Campbell (1999b) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Price and Campbell (2003) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Pritchett et al. (2010) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Pritchett et al. (2011) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Pritchett et al. (2015) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Theisen et al. (2000) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Theisen et al. (2001) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Strong |
| Trbovich (2019) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 0 | 1 | NA | 1 | 2 | 1 | Weak |
| Trbovich et al. (2014) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Trbovich et al. (2016) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Trbovich et al. (2019) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Strong |
| Veltmeijer et al. (2014) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Webborn et al. (2005) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
| Webborn et al. (2010) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Strong |
NA not applicable, 2 indicates yes, 1 indicates partial, 0 indicates no.
Quality scores: > 75% strong, 55% ≥ 75% moderate, <55% weak.