Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of quality assessment̽

From: Effects of biofeedback on biomechanical factors associated with chronic ankle instability: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Questions

Aim clearly described?

Main outcomes described in introduction or method?

patient’s characteristics clearly described?

Interventions clearly described?

Principal confounders clearly described

Main findings clearly described?

Estimates of random variability provided for main outcomes?

All adverse events reported? *

Characteristics of patients lost to follow up described?

p-value report for main outcome?

Subjects asked to participate representative of source population?

Subjects prepared to participate representative of source population?

Location and delivery of treatment was representative of source population? *

Study participants blinded to treatment?

Study/question number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

MA. Feger et al. 2016 [27]

1

1

1

 

1

1

1

  

1

0

1

  

L. Donovan et al. 2016 [17]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

0

1

  

MA. Feger et al. 2018 [31]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

0

1

  

DM. Torp 2019 [15]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

0

1

  

AM. Ifarraguerri 2019 [16]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

0

1

  

DC. Mueler. 2020 [25]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

1

1

  

J. Jang et al. 2021 [30]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

1

1

  

RM. Koldenhoven. 2021 [14]

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

DM. Torp. 2021 [6]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

1

1

  

JL. Workman. 2021 [26]

1

1

1

 

1

1

1

  

1

0

0

  

KG. Migel 2021 [28]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

1

1

  

KG. Migel 2021 [29]

1

1

1

 

2

1

1

  

1

1

1

  

DM. Torp. 2022 [3]

1

1

1

1

2

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

Percentage agreement reliability

100%

100%

92%

 

96%

100%

96%

  

100%

96%

92%

  

Questions

Blinded outcome assessment

Any data dredging clearly described? *

Analysis adjusts for differing follow-up length?

Appropriate statistical test performed?

Compliance with interventions was reliable? *

Outcome measures were reliable and valid?

All participants recruited from the source population? *

All participants recruited over the same period of time?

Participants randomized treatment?

Allocation of treatment concealed from investigators and participants?

Adequate adjustment for confounding?

Losses to follow up taken into account?

Sufficient power to detect treatment effect at significance level of 0.05?

 

Study/question number

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Total

MA. Feger et al. 2016 [27]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

12

L. Donovan et al. 2016 [17]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

13

MA. Feger et al. 2018 [31]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

13

DM. Torp 2019 [15]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

13

AM. Ifarraguerri 2019 [16]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

13

DC. Mueler. 2020 [25]

 

1

 

1

 

1

0

1

  

0

  

14

J. Jang et al. 2021 [30]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

15

RM. Koldenhoven. 2021 [14]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

23

DM. Torp. 2021 [6]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

14

JL. Workman. 2021 [26]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

11

KG. Migel 2021 [28]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

0

  

0

  

14

KG. Migel 2021 [29]

 

1

 

1

 

1

1

1

  

0

  

15

DM. Torp. 2022 [3]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

24

Percentage agreement reliability

 

95%

 

100%

 

92%

96%

100%

  

100%

   
  1. Key: 1 = Yes, 0 = No. *2 = Yes, 1 = Partially, 0 = No, * = the question discussed with the third reviewer
Back to article page

BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation

ISSN: 2052-1847

Contact us