Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality appraisal of included studies

From: Biomechanical and Musculoskeletal Measurements as Risk Factors for Running-Related Injury in Non-elite Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies

 

Bennett et al. (2012) [50]

Bring et al. (2017) [51]a

Buist et al. (2010) [10]

Davis et al. (2003) [52]

Davis and Mullineaux (2016) [24]

Desai and Gruber (2021) [59]

Hamill et al. (2007) [58]

Hein et al. (2014) [14]

Hendricks and Phillips (2013) [19]a

Hesar et al. (2009) [22]

Hespanhol et al. (2016) [20]

Jungmalm et al. (2020) [60]

Leetun et al. (2004) [15]a

Lun et al. (2004) [4]

Messier et al. (2018) [16]

Are the eligibility criteria appropriate for the aims of the study? e.g. were participants free from injury at baseline?

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Are the baseline assessment methods adequately described?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Have the reliability and validity of baseline assessment methods been established?

✓

✓

*

✓

✓

✓

✓

*

*

✓

*

*

✓

*

*

Was the injury reporting method adequately described?

✓

✓

✓

X

X

X

X

✓

✓

X

Y

X

✓

✓

✓

For specific injury diagnoses, was there a suitably qualified assessor?c

X

n/a

n/a

?

n/a

n/a

?

?

n/a

✓

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

For specific injury diagnoses, was the assessor blinded to baseline results?c

X

n/a

n/a

?

n/a

n/a

?

?

n/a

?

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

For specific injury diagnoses, were all injuries diagnosed in the same manner?c

X

n/a

n/a

?

n/a

n/a

?

?

n/a

?

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Did the authors state how they dealt with multiple injuries? e.g. only analysed first injuryd

X

X

n/a

X

n/a

n/a

X

X

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Were important confounders (e.g. training load) accounted for?

X

X

✓

X

✓

?

✓

✓

X

✓

X

X

✓

✓

✓

Is it likely that attrition rates and/or reasons affected the results of the study?

?

✓

n/a

n/a

?

X

n/a

X

?

n/a

n/a

?

✓

X

✓

 

Napier et al. (2018) [25]

Noehren et al. (2007) [26]

Noehren et al. (2013) [27]

Peterson et al. (2020) [53]b

Shen et al. (2019) [28]

Stafanyshyn et al. (2006) [29]

Hotta et al. (2015) [54]

Thijs et al. (2008) [55]

Thijs et al. (2011) [17]

Torp et al. (2018) [17]

Van Der Worp et al. (2016) [35]

Van Ginckel et al. (2008) [23]

Wen et al. (1998) [21]

Winter et al. (2019) [61]

Zifchock (2007) [57]

Are the eligibility criteria appropriate for the aims of the study? e.g. were participants free from injury at baseline?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

✓

✓

?

Are the baseline assessment methods adequately described?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Have the reliability and validity of baseline assessment methods been established?

✓

✓

✓

*

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

*

✓

✓

?

?

*

Was the injury reporting method adequately described?

✓

X

X

✓

X

✓

X

X

X

✓

✓

✓

✓

X

X

For specific injury diagnoses, was there a suitably qualified assessor?c

n/a

✓

✓

n/a

?

✓

n/a

✓

✓

✓

n/a

?

n/a

n/a

?

For specific injury diagnoses, was the assessor blinded to baseline results?c

n/a

?

?

n/a

?

?

n/a

?

✓

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

n/a

?

For specific injury diagnoses, were all injuries diagnosed in the same manner?c

n/a

✓

✓

n/a

✓

✓

n/a

✓

✓

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

n/a

?

Did the authors state how they dealt with multiple injuries? e.g. only analysed first injuryd

n/a

X

X

✓

X

X

n/a

X

X

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Were important confounders (e.g. training load) accounted for?

✓

✓

✓

n/a

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

X

Is it likely that attrition rates and/or reasons affected the results of the study?

✓

n/a

n/a

n/a

?

n/a

X

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

X

X

X

  1. ✓ = low risk; X = high risk; ? = can’t tell; *some but not all measures were known by the reviewers to be reliable
  2. aData for eligible participants provided and re-analysed in this review
  3. bSome items incomplete as research is ongoing; additional information for some items provided by contact author
  4. cn/a applied if the outcome was injured vs. not-injured (risk classification only applied to studies investigating risk factors for specific diagnoses)
  5. dOnly applied to studies interested in a specific injury diagnosis (n/a for studies comparing RRI vs. no RRI)