Skip to main content

Table 8 Modified Downs and Black checklist

From: The mechanism of hamstring injuries – a systematic review

Reporting

1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? 0-1p

2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? 0-1p

3. Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described? 0-1p

6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described? 0-1p

7. Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? 0-1p

9. Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? 0-1p

10. Have actual probability values been reported (e.g. 0.035 rather than < 0.05) for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001? 0-1p

External validity

11. Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0-1p

12. Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0-1p

Internal validity – bias

16. If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear? 0-1p

17. In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or, in case-control studies, is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? 0-1p

18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? 0-1p

20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? 0-1p

Internal validity – confounding

25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? 0-1p

26. Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? 0-1p

Power

27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%? 0-5p