Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological quality appraisal

From: Objective impairments of gait and balance in adults living with HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

   Trenkwalder 1992 [46] Arendt 1994 [47] Beckley 1998 [50] Bauer 2005 [7] Dellepiane 2005 [48] Simmonds 2005 [49] Scott 2007 [35] Richert 2011 [8] Bauer 2011 [22] Sullivan 2011 [21] Erlandson 2012a [10] Erlandson 2012b [18] Cohen 2012 [45] Beans 2013 [43] Mbada 2013 [44] Richert 2014 [9] Erlandson 2014 [12]
1 Research question/objective clearly stated? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2 Study population clearly specified and defined? N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3 Participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? CD CD CD CD CD CD CD N CD CD Y Y Y Y CD N CD
4 All subjects recruited from similar populations? Eligibility criteria pre-specified and applied uniformly? NR N N Y NR N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
5 Justification of sample size? N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N
6 Exposure(s) measured prior to outcome(s)?a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N
7 Sufficient timeframe to see an association between exposure and outcome?a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N
8 Different levels of the exposure measured, as related to the outcome? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
9 Exposure measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently? NR Y Y Y NR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NR Y Y Y
10 Exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CD N
11 Outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently? CD NR NR NR CD Y Y NR Y NR N N N Y Y NR CD
12 Outcome assessors blinded to exposure status? NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
13 Loss to follow-up after baseline ≤20%?a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
14 Key potential confounders measured and statistically adjusted for? N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
  Total CAT score /14 1 3 3 7 2 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 6
  Total CAT % 7.14 21.43 21.43 50 14.29 42.86 50 42.86 42.86 42.86 50 50 50 50 50 57.14 42.86
  1. Abbreviations: CD cannot determine, NR not reported
  2. aCross-sectional analyses provide weaker evidence than cohort studies regarding a potential causal relationship between exposures and outcomes. For cross-sectional analyses, the answer to Questions 6, 7, 10 & 13 should be “No”. All studies were cross-sectional, except for Richert 2014 (prospective longitudinal cohort)