Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality rating based on recommendations of Aderem and Louw [2]

From: Single-Leg Assessment of Postural Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Quality criteria Clark et al. [13] Dauty et al. [16] Fernandes et al. [18] Hoffman et al. [27] Kouvelioti et al. [33] Mohammadi et al. [38] Negahban et al. [40] Sayuri Tookuni et al. [52] Shiraishi et al. [53] Soltani et al. [57] Zouita Ben Moussa et al. [62]
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? Y Y Y Y CD CD Y CD CD Y Y
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? Y N N N N Y N N N Y N
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
7. Was the timeframe sufficient (range < 24 months) so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? Y Y Y CD N Y N NR N N N
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y NA
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CD Y Y Y
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? N N N N N Y N N Y N N
Total score 8/11 7/11 7/11 6/11 5/11 8/11 6/11 4/11 6/11 8/11 6/11
Total score (%) 72% 63% 63% 54% 45% 72% 54% 36% 54% 72% 54%
Quality rating [2] Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair
  1. Y yes, N no, CD cannot determine, NR not reported, NA not applicable