Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 3;19(15):9533. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159533

Table 1.

Results of the methodological quality assessment of included studies—McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies [21].

Study Item Total % Quality Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ma et al., 2017 [12] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 93.8 E
Rogerson et al., 2007 [14] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 93.8 E
Fernández-Lázaro et al., 2021 [15] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 100 E
Talemi et al., 2021 [17] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 100 E
Milasius, et al., 2019 [22] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 13 86.7 VG
Poprzecki et al., 2005 [23] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 86.7 VG
Wilk et al., 2012 [24] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 86.7 VG

Abbreviations: 0 = not fulfilled criterion; 1 = fulfilled criterion; E = excellent; VG = very good. Item 1: study purpose; item 2: literature review; item 3: study design; item 4: blinding; item 5: sample description; item 6: sample size; item 7: ethics and consent; item 8: validity of outcomes; item 9: reliability of outcomes; item 10: intervention description; item 11: statistical significance; item 12: statistical analysis; item 13: clinical importance; item 14: conclusions; item 15: clinical implications; item 16: study limitations.