Table 1

Appraisal results of each study using our tool with total scores and percentages both for each study and for each tool item

StudyRisk of bias (RoB) assessmentPooling of resultsStrength of evidence assessmentTotal score%
Item1
(0–2)		2
(0–1)		3
(0–2)		4
(0–1)		5
(0–2)		6
(0–2)		7
(0–2)		8
(0–2)		9
(0–2)		10
(0–2)		11 (0–1)12
(0–1)
Arirachakaran et al 110021–20002007/1839
Arirachakaran et al 120021020002007/2035
Balasubramaniam 1320212–02200011/1861
Bannuru et al 1420212–0000007/1839
Bjordal et al 152021–20002009/1850
Boudreault et al 160020–20012007/1839
Buchbinder et al 1720212222201117/2085
Catapano et al 1800200–0000002/1811
Challoumas et al 1920012–20201111/1861
Challoumas et al 2020012–2020117/1161
Chen et al 210021–20202009/1850
Coombes et al 2220212222220117/2085
Dan et al 2321212222221120/20100
de Vos et al 2420011–0020006/1833
Desjardins-Charbonneau et al 250021020202009/2045
Desjardins-Charbonneau et al 260020020212009/2045
Desmeules et al 2700010–0010002/1811
Desmeules et al 2800000–0000000/180
Desmeules et al 290020020010005/2025
Dong et al 302–21–21000–08/1650
Dupley and Charalambous 310–21–21000–06/1638
Fitzpatrick et al 321–21–22210–011/1669
Haslerud et al 332021–202100010/1856
Heales et al 3420212–02201113/1872
Huisstede et al 3520010–2020007/1839
Ioppolo et al 360001000000001/205
Krey et al 3700000–0000000/180
Lafrance et al 3800210–1210009/1850
Larsson et al 3910000–0020003/1817
Lee et al 4010000–2020016/1833
Li et al 770020–21200007/1839
Liao et al 410021–22002009/1850
Lin et al 422021–222020013/1872
Lin et al 432121–222020014/1878
Lin et al 441021–220020010/1856
Littlewood et al4520010–1020006/1833
Louwerens et al 4610210212201114/2070
Maffulli et al 4700000–0000000/180
Magnussen et al 4800010–0000001/186
Martimbianco et al 492021–212221116/1889
Mendonça et al 502021–220221115/1883
Miller et al 510021–220120010/1856
Mohamadi et al 522–21222202–015/1883
Murphy et al 532–21–20222–114/1688
Nogueira and Moura 5400000–0000000/180
Ortega-Castillo and Medina-Porqueres 5520212–0020009/1850
Sussmilch-Leitch et al 5620212212000013/2065
Tsikopoulos et al 5700212–22020011/1861
Toliopoulos et al 5800000–0010001/186
Vander Doelen and Jelley 5900010–0000001/186
Verstraelen et al 6000212222020013/2065
Wasielewski and Kotsko 6100212–0000005/1828
Woodley et al 6220212212200115/2075
Wu et al 630021–222020011/1861
Xiong et al 642021–20000007/1839
Yan et al 650021–11000005/1828
Zhang et al 6600212202020011/2055
Overall mean score–––––––––––––46.5
Overall Total for item53/1142/5282/11445/5733/7465/6846/11448/11445/11444/1148/5212/57
%47%4%72%79%45%96%40%42%39%39%15%21%

  • Item 1—was RoB assessment used in data synthesis and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(PRISMA items 12, 19). Item 2—was RoB assessment performed on an outcome measure level? If not, do the authors state why in methods? (‘1’ if either fulfilled, ‘0’ if neither)—(PRISMA items 12, 19). Item 3—are principally summary measures predefined in methods and used in results? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(PRISMA item 13). Item 4—was the outcome measures of the SR predefined in methods? (‘0’ for no, ‘1’ for yes)—(PRISMA item 11). Item 5—is qualitative synthesis appropriate and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither or if only narrative description without pooling of results, ‘2 for both’, ‘1’ if appropriate but not prespecified or if prespecified but not done)—(PRISMA items 13, 14). Item 6—is quantitative synthesis appropriate and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if appropriate but not prespecified)—(PRISMA items 20, 21). Item 7—was follow-up time points for data analyses predefined and used? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(Cochrane Back Review Group). Item 8—was missing data dealt with appropriately and was this prespecified in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if appropriate but not prespecified)—(Cochrane Back Review Group). Item 9—was assessment of the strength of the evidence used and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(PRISMA item 24). Item 10—was the risk of publication bias acknowledged in methods and was it assessed where appropriate (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if done but not prespecified)—(PRISMA items 15, 25). Item 11—was the strength of the evidence assessed on an outcome measure level? (‘1’ for yes, ‘0’ for no or if assessment of strength of evidence not performed)—(GRADE). Item 12—was the strength of the evidence assessed appropriately according to the prespecified tool? (‘1’ for yes, ‘0’ for no or if not performed/prespecified) (Strength of evidence assessment tools used).

  • GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; SR, systematic review.