Table 2 Methodological quality assessment
Quality criteria | Utting et al 2005[18] | Kannus et al 1999[19] | Nimon et al 1998[20] | Imhoff & Boni 1989[21] | Hvid et al 1981[22] | Dexel et al 1980[23] | Karlson 1939[24] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Purpose clearly stated | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Literature review relevant | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Study design appropriate to study aims | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
No bias present | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sample described in detail | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Sample size justified | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Informed consent gained | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Valid outcome measures used | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Reliable outcome measures used | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Results reported in terms of statistical significance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Analysis appropriate | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Clinical importance of results reported | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Appropriate conclusions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Clinical implications reported | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Limitations of study acknowledged | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 9 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 11 | 5 | 3 |