Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological quality score for each study

From: Screening Tools as a Predictor of Injury in Dance: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

Study Designa (1) Level of evidenceb (5) Selection criteriac (1) Settingd (1) Demographic informatione (1) Description of screening toolf (2) Injury definitiong (1) Injury diagnosish (1) Statistical analysisi (1) Predictive statistical analysisj (1) Reliability of index testk (2) Percentage missingl (1) Outcomem (1) Confoundersn (1) Total score (20)
Luke et al. [5] 1 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11
Coplan [24] 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11
Hamilton et al. [26] 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10
Allen et al. [27] 1 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 13
Gamboa et al. [28] 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 14
Hamilton et al. [29] 0 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10
Negus et al. [30] 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 14
Zaletel et al. [31] 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 12
Bhakay et al. [32] 0 4 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11
Wong et al. [33] 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6
Thomas et al. [34] 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 9
Drężewska et al. [35] 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11
Twitchett et al. [36] 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10
McCormack et al. [37] 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 9
Bowerman et al. [38] 1 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 15
Lin et al. [39] 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 12
Frusztajer et al. [40] 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 7
Watkins et al. [41] 0 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 13
McNeal et al. [42] 0 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 12
Reid et al. [43] 0 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 12
Baker-Jenkins et al. [44] 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 14
Ruemper and Watkins [45] 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11
Cahalan et al. [46] 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 13
Cahalan et al. [47] 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 15
Cahalan et al. [48] 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 13
Steinberg et al. [49] 0 4 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 13
Jacobs et al. [50] 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 12
Martin et al. [51] 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Angioi et al. [52] 1 4 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 12
Hiller et al. [53] 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 16
Van Merkensteijn et al. [54] 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11
Wiesler et al. [55] 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 14
Kenny et al. [56] 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 14
Lee et al. [57] 1 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 16
Davenport et al. [58] 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 13
Roussel et al. [59] 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 12
Twitchett et al. [60] 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 13
Steinberg et al. [61] 0 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 12
Roussel et al. [62] 1 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 15
Steinberg et al. [63] 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 17
Steinberg et al. [64] 1 4 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 16
Van Seters et al. [65] 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 16
  1. The maximum possible score for quality was 20; this score was derived from 14 domains
  2. aStudy design (1 point = prospective, 0 point = retrospective)
  3. bLevel of evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence: level 1 = 5 points; level 2 = 4 points; level 3 = 3 points; level 4 = 2 points; level 5 = 1 point)
  4. cSelection criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly described = 1 point)
  5. dSetting (enough information was provided to identify the setting = 1 point)
  6. eDemographic information (age (mean or median and SD or range) and gender were reported = 1 point)
  7. fDescription of the screening tool (test device or instruments = 1 point, protocol of screening tool(s) reported = 1 point, insufficient data to permit replication of the test)
  8. gInjury definition (clear and appropriate definition is provided = 1 point)
  9. hInjury diagnosis (made by physical therapist/physiotherapist or doctor = 1 point, self-assessed = 0 point)
  10. iStatistical analysis (detail given on mean or median, SD, P value or CI = 1 point)
  11. jPredictive statistical analysis (multivariate regression analysis or RR/OR used as predictive value = 1 point)
  12. kReliability of index test (reliability reported from previous research = 1 point, reliability reported from actual study data = 2 points)
  13. lPercentage missing (all included subjects measured and if appropriate missing data or withdrawals from a study reported or explained = 1 point)
  14. mOutcome (outcome clearly defined and method of examination of outcome adequate = 1 point)
  15. nConfounder (most important confounders and prognostic factors identified and adequately taken into account in design study = 1 point)