Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of the included studies using Joanna Briggs Institute’s appraisal instrument

From: A systematic review: efficacy of botulinum toxin in walking and quality of life in post-stroke lower limb spasticity

Study

Sample randomizationa

Inclusion criteriab

Confounding factors/biasc

Outcome criteriad

Comparison group descriptione

Sampling timingf

Participants withdrawalg

Outcome measurementh

Data synthesisi

Inclusionj

Total score

Kaji et al. [22]

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

8

Pittock et al. [23]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10

Tao et al. [20]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

9

Burbaud et al. [24]

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

8

Johnson et al. [21]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

9

Yes = 1; no/unclear = 0

  1. aWas the study based on a random or pseudo-random sample?
  2. bWere the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
  3. cWere confounding factors identified and strategies to deal with them stated?
  4. dWere outcomes assessed using objective criteria?
  5. eIf comparisons are being made, were there sufficient descriptions of the groups?
  6. fWas follow-up carried out over a sufficient time period?
  7. gWere the outcomes of people who withdrew described and included in the analysis?
  8. hWere outcomes measured in a reliable way?
  9. iWas appropriate statistical analysis used?
  10. jIs this study to be included in the systematic review?