Table 2.

Results of risk of bias assessment for studies included in the systematic review (N=8)^a.

Study details		Summary: excellent or good, n (%)	COSMINb risk of bias assessment
Author, year published	Study setting		Reporting missing data	Handling missing data	Adequate sample size	Acceptable comparison	Flaws in design or methods	Acceptable accuracy metrics
Kim and Lochbaum [40], 2018	Fc	6 (100)	Good	Good	Good	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent
Mooses et al [39], 2018	F	6 (100)	Excellent	Good	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent
Byun et al [20], 2018	F	5 (83)	Good	Good	Poor	Excellent	Excellent	Good
Scott et al [38], 2019	F	4 (67)	Excellent	Excellent	Poor	Good	Fair	Excellent
Godino et al [43], 2020	Cd	6 (100)	Excellent	Excellent	Good	Excellent	Good	Excellent
Byun et al [41], 2018	C	5 (83)	Good	Good	Poor	Good	Excellent	Good
Kang et al [42], 2019	C	4 (67)	Good	Good	Fair	Excellent	Excellent	Poor
Sirard et al [44], 2017	C, F	3 (50)	Excellent	Excellent	Poor	Excellent	Fair	Poor

^aThe summary of excellent or good values of reporting missing data, handling missing data, adequate sample size, acceptable comparison, flaws in design or methods, and acceptable accuracy metrics are 8 (100%), 8 (100%), 3 (38%), 8 (100%), 6 (75%), and 6 (75%), respectively.

^bCOSMIN: Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments.

^cF: free-living.

^dC: controlled.