Table 1. Methodological quality assessment of studies included in this study.
| Number/Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Abbas (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (2) Banda et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (3) Chaouachi et al. (2009a) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (4) Habibi et al. (2010) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (5) Holm et al. (2008) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (6) Hudgins et al. (2013) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (7) Kale et al. (2009) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (8) Kulakowski et al. (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (9) Lockie et al. (2014) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (10) Lockie, Dawes & Callaghan (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (11) Loturco et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (12) Mackala, Fostiak & Kowalski (2015) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| (13) Mackala et al. (2021) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (14) Maulder, Bradshaw & Keogh (2006) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (15) McCurdy et al. (2010) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| (16) Popowczak et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (17) Robbins & Young (2012) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| (18) Schuster & Jones (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (19) Washif & Kok (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| (20) Yanci et al. (2014) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (21) Dietze-Hermosa et al. (2021) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (22) Hennessy & Kilty (2001) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| (23) Chaouachi et al. (2009b) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (24) Almuzaini & Fleck (2008) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (25) Maulder & Cronin (2005) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| (26) Meylan et al. (2009) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| (27) Nesser et al. (1996) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
Notes.
1. The objectives of the study were clearly reported, 2. The main outcomes to be assessed were clearly reported, 3. The characteristics of the participants were clearly reported, 4. The main findings were clearly reported, 5. The estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes were clearly reported, 6. The actual probability values were clearly reported, 7. Can the participants represent the entire population, 8. If any of the results of the study were based on ‘data dredging,’ was this made clear?, 9. Were the statistical tests appropriate, 10. Were the main outcome measure accurate.
- 1
- The item was clearly reported.
- 0
- the item was not clearly reported