Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological quality assessment of the included studies (Downs and Black [40])

From: Quantifying the Collision Dose in Rugby League: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Critical Analysis

Study Question number Total score
1 2 3 6 7 10 11 12 16 18 20  
Austin et al. [46] 1 1 0 1 0 0 0* 0 1 1 1 6
Cummins and Orr [44] 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Cummins and Orr [26] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Dempsey et al. [8] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0* 1 1 1 1 9
Evans et al. [69] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Fletcher et al. [70] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Gabbett et al. [31] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0* 0 1 1 1 8
Gabbett and Ryan [71] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Gabbett [33] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Gabbett [23] 0 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 8
Gabbett [47] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Gabbett [48] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Gabbett and Hulin [36] 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Gabbett et al. [49] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0* 0 1 1 1 8
Gabbett et al. [50] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0* 0 1 1 1 8
Gabbett et al. [24] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Gabbett et al. [51] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Gabbett et al. [52] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Gabbett et al. [53] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 0 1 1 8
Hulin and Gabbett [54] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 1 1 1 1 10
Hulin et al. [35] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Hulin et al. [55] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 1 1 1 1 10
Johnston et al. [56] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Kempton et al. [57] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Kempton et al. [58] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Kempton et al. [42] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 1 1 1 1 10
King et al. [41] 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
King et al. [28] 1 1 0 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Lovell et al. [59] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
McLellan and Lovell [60] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
McLellan et al. [38] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Murray et al. [61] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Oxendale et al. [62] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Sirotic et al. [32] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Sirotic et al. [63] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Speranza et al. [64] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Sykes et al. [65] 1 1 0 1 1 0 0* 0 1 1 1 7
Twist et al. [66] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Varley et al. [16] 1 1 0 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Weaving et al. [67] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Weaving et al. [7] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0* 0 1 1 1 9
Woods et al. [1] 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Woods et al. [68] 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
  1. 1. Is the hypothesis/aim clearly described? 2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the introduction/methods sections? 3. Are the characteristics of the participants included in the study clearly described? 6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described? 7. Does the study provide estimates of the variability in the data for the main outcome? 10. Have p values/effect sizes for the main outcome been reported? 11. Were the subjects who were asked to participate representative of the wider population of interest? 12. Were the subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the wider population of interest? 16. Were any of the results based on ‘data dredging’, was this made clear? 18. Were the statistical tests used for the main outcomes appropriate? 20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate and reliable? *Unable to determine