Contributions of musculoskeletal rehabilitation in patients after chikungunya fever: a systematic review

Table 3 Degree of quality of evidence of the included studies

Authors and year	Corresponding criteria and scores
Authors and year	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10	#11	Total	%
Ribeiro et al., 2016 [15]	NA	NA	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	NA	NA	6	54,5
Oliveira and Silva 2017 [9]	NA	NA	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	NA	NA	6	54,5
Silva-Filho et al., 2018 [16]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Coutinho 2018 [17]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Oliveira 2018 [18]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Neumann et al., 2019 [19]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Siqueira, et al., 2019 [20]	NA	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	7	63,6
Neumann et al., 2019 [21]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Oliveira et al., 2019 [22]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Silva et al., 2020 [23]	NA	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	7	63,6
Tenório et al., 2020 [24]	NA	NA	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	NA	5	45,4
Souza et al., 2021 [25]	1	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	8	72,7
Almeida et al., 2021 [26]	NA	1	1	0	NA	1	1	1	1	NA	1	7	63,6

Note: 0 = No; 1 = Yes; NA = Not applicable; #1: Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? #2: Were exposures measured similarly to assign people to exposed and unexposed groups? #3: Was the exposure measured validly and reliably? #4: Were confounding factors identified? #5: Have trategies for dealing with confounders been stated?; #6: Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at baseline (or at the time of exposure)?; #7: Were the results measured validly and reliably?; #8: Was the follow-up time reported long enough for results to occur?; #9: Was follow-up complete and, if not, were reasons for loss to follow-up described and explored?; #10: Were strategies used to deal with incomplete follow-up?; #11: Was the appropriate statistical analysis used?

ISSN: 1471-2474