Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 29;12:727089. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.727089

Table 3.

Quality in prognosis studies tool ratings (risk for bias ratings).

First author Year published Retired vs. current athletes Quality in prognosis studies-6 bias domains
Participation Attrition Prognostic factor measurement Outcome measurement Confounding Statistical analysis/reporting Overall
Stamm (80) 2015 Retired High N/A High High High Low High
Stamm (81) 2015 Retired High N/A High High High Low High
Schultz (82) 2018 Retired High N/A High High High Moderate High
Kaufmann (83) 2021 Retired High N/A High High High Low High
Alosco (92) 2017 Retired High N/A Moderate Low High Low High
Montenigro (93) 2017 Retired High N/A High Low High Low High
Alosco (94) 2018 Retired High N/A High Moderate High Moderate High
Solomon (91) 2016 Retired High N/A High Low High Low High
Roberts (71) 2019 Retired High N/A Moderate Low High Moderate High
Iverson (86) 2020 Retired High N/A Moderate Low High Moderate High
Iverson (85) 2021 Retired High N/A Moderate Low High Moderate High
Bryant (122) 2020 Current & Retired High N/A Moderate Low High High High
Hunzinger (121) 2021 Current & Retired High N/A Moderate Low High Moderate High
Houck (90) 2020 Current Moderate N/A High Low High Low High
Brett (84) 2019 Current Low N/A High Low High Moderate High
Caccese (87) 2019 Current Low N/A High Low High Moderate High
Caccese (123) 2020 Current Moderate N/A High Low High Moderate High
Caccese (88) 2020 Current Low N/A High Low High Moderate High
Caccese (89) 2020 Current High N/A High Low High High High
Caccese (124) 2020 Current High N/A High High High Moderate High
Asken (111) 2020 Current Low N/A High Low High Low High

A customized guide for rating these articles is provided in the online supplement. All studies were rated as having an overall high risk for bias.