Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment of included studies – adapted from the Critical Appraisal Form (CAT) for Quantitative Studies [28, 29]

From: Do alterations in muscle strength, flexibility, range of motion, and alignment predict lower extremity injury in runners: a systematic review

Author

I-1

I- 2

I-3

I-4

I-5

I- 6

I- 7

I-8

I-9

I-10

I-11

I-12

I-13

I-14

I-15

I-16

T.S

T.%

Buist et al., 2010 [36]

+

+

–

+

+

+

–

+

+

–

+

+

+

+

+

+

13

81.25

Finnoff et al., 2011 [39]

+

+

–

+

+

+

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

+

+

+

12

75.0

Hespanhol Junior et al., 2016 [16]

+

+

–

+

+

+

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

+

+

+

12

75.0

Luedke et al., 2015 [38]

+

+

–

+

+

–

+

+

+

+

–

+

–

+

–

+

11

68.75

Plisky et al., 2007 [37]

+

+

–

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

15

93.75

Ramskov et al., 2013 [41]

+

+

–

–

+

+

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

+

+

+

11

68.75

Yagi et al., 2013 [40]

+

+

–

+

+

+

–

+

+

–

–

+

+

+

+

+

12

75.0

  1. Note. Item 1: Purpose of the study was clearly stated, Item 2: Study design was appropriate, Item 3: Study detected sample bias, Item 4: Measurement biases were detected in the study, Item 5: Sample size was stated, Item 6: The sample was described in detail, Item 7: Sample size was justified, Item 8: Outcomes were clearly stated and relevant, Item 9: Method of measurement was described sufficiently, Item 10: The measures used were reliable, Item 11: The measures used were valid, Item 12: The results were reported in terms of statistical significance, Item 13: The analysis methods used were appropriate, Item 14: Clinical importance was reported, Item 15: Missing data were reported when appropriate, Item 16: Conclusions were relevant and appropriate given methods and results of the study
  2. Abbreviations I- Item, T.S- total score, T%- total CAT %, meets criteria ‘+’, does not meet criteria ‘-’