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

Armstrong, Ross; Relph, Nicola

doi:10.1186/s40798-018-0146-z

Sports Medicine - Open

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	Design^a (1)	Level of evidence^b (5)	Selection criteria^c (1)	Setting^d (1)	Demographic information^e (1)	Description of screening tool^f (2)	Injury definition^g (1)	Injury diagnosis^h (1)	Statistical analysisⁱ (1)	Predictive statistical analysis^j (1)	Reliability of index test^k (2)	Percentage missing^l (1)	Outcome^m (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

The maximum possible score for quality was 20; this score was derived from 14 domains
^aStudy design (1 point = prospective, 0 point = retrospective)
^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)
^cSelection criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly described = 1 point)
^dSetting (enough information was provided to identify the setting = 1 point)
^eDemographic information (age (mean or median and SD or range) and gender were reported = 1 point)
^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)
^gInjury definition (clear and appropriate definition is provided = 1 point)
^hInjury diagnosis (made by physical therapist/physiotherapist or doctor = 1 point, self-assessed = 0 point)
ⁱStatistical analysis (detail given on mean or median, SD, P value or CI = 1 point)
^jPredictive statistical analysis (multivariate regression analysis or RR/OR used as predictive value = 1 point)
^kReliability of index test (reliability reported from previous research = 1 point, reliability reported from actual study data = 2 points)
^lPercentage missing (all included subjects measured and if appropriate missing data or withdrawals from a study reported or explained = 1 point)
^mOutcome (outcome clearly defined and method of examination of outcome adequate = 1 point)
ⁿConfounder (most important confounders and prognostic factors identified and adequately taken into account in design study = 1 point)

Back to article page