Table 2

Quality assessment of included articles (adapted from Downs & Black [49])


Reference:
[51]
[52]
[58]
[53]
[54]
[60]
[55]
[59]
[56]
[57]

1
Is the hypothesis/aim of the study clearly described ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

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

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

4
Are the interventions of interest clearly described ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5
Are the main findings of the study clearly described ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

6
Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

7
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 ?
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1

8
Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited ?
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

9
Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited ?
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0

10
Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received ?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

11
Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention ?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

12
If any of the results of the study were based on "data dredging", was this made clear ?
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1

13
Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate ?
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1

14
Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable) ?
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1

15
Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups ?
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1


Quality Index Score (max score = 15)
10
8
10
11
10
6
11
9
11
10


Quality Index %
67
53
67
73
67
40
73
60
73
67

(0 = no/unable to determine, 1 = yes)

McMillan and Payne Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2008 1:13   doi:10.1186/1757-1146-1-13