Skip to main content

Table 2 Modified Downs and Black’s checklist results. The scale was composed of 20 items related to information reporting (items 1 to 9), external validity (items 10 and 11), internal validity (items 12 to 15), and selection bias (items 16 to 20). Each item was scored 0 to represent a high risk of bias or 1 to represent a low risk of bias. Studies that scored a total of 0 to 6 were classified as “high risk of bias”, from 7 to 13 as “moderate risk of bias”, and from 14 to 20 as “low risk of bias”

From: Transitioning to Minimal Footwear: a Systematic Review of Methods and Future Clinical Recommendations

Checklist Studies
Wilson et al. [9] Warne and Warrington [38] Warne et al. [7] Bellar and Judge [34] Warne et al. [8] Khowailed et al. [35] Moore et al. [36] Warne et al. [32] Johnson et al. [11] Ridge et al. [24] Ridge et al. [25] Ryan et al. [31] McCarthy et al. [28] Miller et al. [29] Joseph et al. [37] Dubois et al. [30] Campitelli et al. [26] Azevedo et al. [39] Chen et al. [27] Fuller et al. [33]
Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Are the characteristics of the participants included in the study clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Are the interventions of interest clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Are the main findings of the study clearly described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
Have actual probability values been reported? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
If any of the results of the study were based on “Data dredging”, was this made clear? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Were the participants in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited from the same population? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited over the same period of time? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%? 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 12 10 11 10 13 11 10 13 13 13 13 10 14 14 11 16 11 8 14 14
  1. Low-risk studies are highlighted in italics