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 |