Table 1.
Methodological quality scoring system (adapted from Sarmento et al., 2018 [16]).
| Question | Answer | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Was(were) the aim(s) of study clearly set out? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q2 | Were characteristics of participants presented in detail in methods section? (number of subjects, sex, age, country/city) | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q3 | Was sample size justified? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q4 | Are the motor performance to be measured clearly described in the methods section? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q5 | Were statistics clearly presented? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q6 | Resultsʹ details (means and standard deviations and/or change/ difference, effect size/mechanistic magnitude-based inference) | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q7 | Were conclusions appropriate given the study methods and the objectives? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q8 | Are there any implications for practice given the results of the study? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q9 | Were limitations of the study acknowledged and described by the authors? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Q10 | Are there any future direction described by the authors? | Yes = 2; Maybe = 1; No = 0 | 0–2 |
| Total | 0–20 |
Strict rules applied (No information = 0 point; 1–2 items described = 1 point; all items described = 2 points).