Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 1 Risk of bias and quality assessment

From: The Biomechanics and Applications of Strongman Exercises: a Systematic Review

Article12345678910111213141516Score (/16)
Holmstrup et al. [31]----12 (L)
Keogh et al. [32]---13 (L)
Keogh et al. [33]----11 (L)
Keogh et al. [34]---13 (L)
McGill et al. [35]---------7 (S)
Stastny et al. [36]--------8 (S)
Renals et al. [37]----12 (L)
Winwood et al. [8]-----11 (L)
Winwood et al. [7]---13 (L)
Winwood et al. [38]---13 (L)
Winwood et al. [39]----12 (L)
  1. Method for assessing risk of bias: (1) study design was stated clearly; (2) the study objective/purpose is clearly stated; (3) the study has a clearly testable hypothesis; (4) the study clearly states the inclusion criteria for participants; (5) the characteristics of the population are well detailed; (6) the study population is representative of the intended population for which the research is aimed; (7) a justification for the selection of the sample/study population size was provided; (8) the methods used throughout testing are well detailed; (9) the measurement tools used throughout the study are reliable and have been validated; (10) detail on the statistical methods used was provided; (11) the statistical methods used to analyze the data were appropriate; (12) the results of the study are well detailed; (13) the information provided in the paper is sufficient information was provided so to allow the reader to make an unbiased assessment of the study findings; (14) confounding factors within the study are identified; (15) study funding/conflicts of interest were acknowledged; (16) limitations to the study were identified. L low risk of bias (11–16 ☼), S satisfactory risk of bias (6–10 ☼), H high risk of bias (0–5 ☼)