Table A2:

GRADE Evidence Profile for the Comparison of SCKAFO and LKAFO

Number of Studies (Design)a	Risk of Bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication Bias	Upgrade Considerations	Quality
Walking Ability
Velocity 3 studies25–27	Serious limitations (–1)b	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low
Cadence 3 studies25–27	Serious limitations (–1)b	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low
Step Length 2 studies25–27	Serious limitations (–1)b	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low
Swing Time 1 study26	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (–1)c	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low
Activities of Daily Living
1 study12	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (–1)d	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low
Energy Consumption
Oxygen cost 1 study26	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (–1)c	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low
Physiological cost index 1 study26	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (–1)c	Undetected	None	⊕ Very low

Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; LKAFO, locked knee–ankle–foot orthoses; SCKAFO, stance-control knee–ankle–foot orthoses.

^aAll studies were before and after studies (observational).

^bTwo of the studies did not report results in text. We used software to gather estimates that may not be perfectly accurate.

^cSmall sample size (n = 10) (e.g., not adequately powered) and no sample size calculation was done.

^dSmall sample size (n = 5) (e.g., not adequately powered) and no sample size calculation was done.