Skip to main content

Table 3 Critical appraisal scores, Kennelly ratings [48], and risk of bias assessment based on modified Downs and Black [42]

From: The Relationship Between Physical Fitness Qualities and Sport-Specific Technical Skills in Female, Team-Based Ball Players: A Systematic Review

Study author (year)Critical appraisal score (out of 21)Kennelly ratingRisk of bias
Bojić and Pavlović (2015) [55]11FairLow
Brooks et al. (2013) [81]7PoorHigh
Čavala et al. (2008) [56]12FairLow
Dyer et al. (2018) [87]12FairLow
Elliot and Smith (1983) [91]12FairLow
Eriksrud et al. (2019) [57]10PoorLow
Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe et al. (2016) [88]16GoodLow
Garcia-Gil et al. (2018) [89]15GoodLow
Granados et al. (2008) [58]14FairLow
Granados et al. (2013) [59]14FairLow
Grgantov et al. (2007) [69]10PoorHigh
Hoff and Almåsbakk (1995) [54]a14PoorLow
Ikeda et al. (2018) [70]14FairHigh
Jelaska et al. (2015) [82]12FairLow
Kaminski et al. (2007) [83]14FairHigh
Karadenizli (2016) [60]14FairLow
Katić et al. (2007) [61]7PoorHigh
Katić et al. (2006) [71]12FairLow
Kutlu et al. (2017) [84]15GoodLow
Marsh et al. (2010) [93]14FairLow
McGhie et al. (2018) [62]15GoodHigh
Melrose et al. (2007) [72]15GoodLow
Mielgo-Ayuso et al. (2015) [73]15GoodLow
Moss et al. (2015) [63]14FairLow
Mujika et al. (2009) [85]14FairLow
Perroni et al. (2018) [86]14FairLow
Piscitelli et al. (2016) [64]15GoodLow
Pugh et al. (2001) [94]10PoorHigh
Ramos et al. (2019) [90]12FairLow
Saavedra et al. (2018) [65]13FairLow
Sattler et al. (2015) [74]16GoodLow
Sattler et al. (2016) [75]15GoodLow
Schwesig et al. (2016) [66]15GoodLow
Stamm (2004) [76]12FairLow
Stamm et al. (2005) [77]13FairLow
Stamm et al. (2003) [79]14FairLow
Stamm et al. (2001) [78]14FairLow
Tissera et al. (2019) [92]12FairLow
Valadés et al. (2016) [80]14FairLow
van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004) [67]12FairLow
Wagner et al. (2019) [68]11FairLow
  1. For all observational studies, a modified Kennelly rating was determined by raw critical appraisal score (out of 21) to assess the overall methodological quality of each study as either poor (≤ 10), fair (11–14), or good (≥ 15). Risk of bias rating, regardless of study design, was determined by internal validity subset items on the Downs and Black score (out of 6) as either low (≥ 4) or high (≤ 3)
  2. aIntervention study; therefore, Kennelly rating determined by raw critical appraisal score (out of 28) was utilised to assess the overall methodological quality as either poor (≤ 14), fair (15–19), or good (≥ 20)