Table 3.
The quality assessment of included studies by modified Downs and Black Quality checklist
| Study type | Reporting (11) | External validity (3) | Internal validity | Power (1) | Total (28) | Quality* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias (7) | Confounding (6) | |||||||
| Kitzman et al. [70] | RCT | 10 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 25 | Excellent |
| Donelli da Silveira et al. [36] | Randomized parallel group | 10 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 25 | Excellent |
| Mueller et al. [73] | Randomized parallel group | 10 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 25 | Excellent |
| Kitzman et al. [68] | RCT | 10 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 23 | Good |
| Edelmann et al. [30] | RCT | 10 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 23 | Good |
| Alves et al. [31] | RCT | 10 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 23 | Good |
| Smart et al. [27] | RCT | 9 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 23 | Good |
| Palau et al. [71] | RCT | 9 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 23 | Good |
| Karavidas et al. [69] | RCT | 8 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 22 | Good |
| Palau et al. [32] | RCT | 9 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 21 | Good |
| Yeh et al. [72] | Randomized parallel group | 9 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 21 | Good |
| Angadi et al. [29] | Randomized parallel group | 9 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 21 | Good |
| Haykowsky et al. [28] | RCT | 10 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 20 | Moderate |
| Angadi et al. [33] | Randomized parallel group | 8 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 19 | Moderate |
| Smart et al. [74] | Observational | 10 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 16 | Moderate |
| Nolte et al. [34] | Observational | 9 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 19 | Moderate |
| Fu et al. [35] | Observational | 9 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 20 | Moderate |
| Fujimoto et al. [37] | Observational | 9 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 15 | Poor |
RCT randomized controlled trial
*Evaluated by the total score number: ≥ 25 – excellent, 21–24 – good, 16–20 – moderate, ≤ 15 – poor. Studies with no significant changes of assessed echocardiographic parameters after the intervention are marked in gray