Sex-specific differences in neuromuscular activation of the knee stabilizing muscles in adults - a systematic review

Steiner, Martina; Baur, Heiner; Blasimann, Angela

doi:10.1186/s40945-022-00158-x

Archives of Physiotherapy

Table 2 Quality assessment scores according to the NHLBI quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies [37]

From: Sex-specific differences in neuromuscular activation of the knee stabilizing muscles in adults - a systematic review

Study (publication year)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Q14	Quality Rating
Bencke & Zebis (2011) [38]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	good
DeMont & Lephart (2004) [39]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	No	poor
Deschenes et al. (2009) [40]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	fair
Hanson et al. (2008) [24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	fair
Hart et al. (2007) [41]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	good
Kim et al. (2016) [42]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	No	fair
Lee et al. (2015) [43]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	No	poor
Myer et al. (2005) [27]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	No	fair
Padua et al. (2005) [28]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	poor
Palmieri-Smith et al. (2007) [44]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	fair
Rozzi et al. (1999) [45]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	good
Shultz et al. (2001) [20]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	good
Smith et al. (2009) [46]	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	No	poor
Urabe et al. (2004) [22]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	fair
Wu et al. (2016) [47]	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NR	NA	No	poor

Legend: NHLBI National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NA not applicable, NR not reported, Q Question, Q1 = Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?; Q2 = Was the study population clearly specified and defined?; Q3 = Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?; Q4 = Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants?; Q5 = Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?; Q6 = For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?; Q7 = Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?; Q8 = For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)?; Q9 = Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?; Q10 = Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?; Q11 = Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?; Q12 = Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?; Q13 = Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?; Q14 = Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?

Back to article page

ISSN: 2057-0082

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com