Table 2.
Risk of bias and methodological quality of the articles included.
| Items Authorship | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiatarone et al., 2014 [33] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 7 |
| Lamb, et al., 2018 [35] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 |
| Littbrand, et al., 2011 [36] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 |
| Gbiri et al., 2020 [34] | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 6 |
| Telenius, et al., 2015 [37] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 |
| Telenius, et al., 2015 [38] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 |
| Toots et al., 2017 [39] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 |
Items: 1 = eligibility criteria; 2 = random allocation; 3 = concealed allocation; 4 = baseline comparability; 5 = blind subjects; 6 = blind therapists; 7 = blind assessors; 8 = adequate follow-up; 9 = intention-to-treat analysis; 10 = between-group comparisons; 11 = point estimates and variability; Y = Yes; N = No.