Skip to main content
Sports Medicine - Open

Table 2 Method for assessing quality and risk of bias

From: The Relationship Between Undulatory Underwater Kick Performance Determinants and Underwater Velocity in Competitive Swimmers: A Systematic Review

Article

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Score (%)

Alves et al. [6]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

56.3 (S)

Arellano et al. [33]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

50 (S)

Atkison et al. [10]

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

75 (L)

Connaboy et al. [34]

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

81.3 (L)

de Jesus et al. [35]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

50 (S)

Elipot et al. [14]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

56.3 (S)

Higgs et al. [15]

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

81.3 (L)

Hochstein and Blickhan, [7]

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

50 (S)

Hochstein and Blickhan [17]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

62.5 (S)

Hochstein et al. [44]

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

50 (S)

Houel et al. [36]

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

75 (L)

Houel et al. [37]

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

81.3 (L)

Ikeda et al. [41]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

75 (L)

Jensen and McIlain [45]

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

56.3 (S)

Lyttle et al. [43]

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

68.8 (L)

Lyttle and Blanksby [42]

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

50 (S)

Miwa et al., [46]

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

50 (S)

Shimojo et al. [47]

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

56.3 (S)

Shimojo et al. [16]

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

75 (L)

Shimojo et al. [48]

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

87.5 (L)

Shimojo et al. [38]

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

62.5 (S)

Wang and Liu [39]

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

62.5 (S)

Willems et al. [24]

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

75 (L)

Yamakawa et al. [40]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

62.5 (S)

Yamakawa et al. [49]

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

68.8 (L)

Total criteria met/25

8

25

25

7

22

8

0

25

7

17

19

25

23

25

12

11

-

  1. (1.1) study design is clearly stated; (1.2) the objectives/purpose of the study are clearly defined; (1.3) the design of the study adequately tests the hypothesis; (2.1) the criteria for the inclusion of subjects are clearly described; (2.2) the characteristics of the population are clearly described; (2.3) the study sample is representative of the population intended to the study; (2.4) a description of how the study size was arrived at is provided; (3.1) the testing methods are clearly described; (3.2) the measurement tools used are valid and reliable; (3.3) the statistical methods used are well described; (3.4) the statistical tests used to analyse the data are appropriate; (4.1) the results are well described; (4.2) the information provided in the paper is sufficient to allow a reader to make an unbiased assessment of the findings of the study; (4.3) confounding factors are identified; (4.4) sponsorships/conflicts of interest are acknowledged; and (4.5) any limitations to the study are identified. Note: the risk of bias score for an article (given as a percentage) is calculated through the addition of the score from each criteria being met divided by the maximum possible score across all criteria (16), multiplied by 100. L low risk of bias (67–100%), S satisfactory risk of bias (34–66%), H high risk of bias
Back to article page