Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological assessment using the McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies

From: Anticipatory postural adjustments in older versus young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author (year)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Scores

Rating

*NHMRC

Level of evidence

Kubicki et al., 2016 [29]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

13

Very good

III

Huang and Brown, 2013 [21]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

13

Very good

III

Woollacott and Manchester, 1993 [13]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

12

Good

III

Bleuse et al., 2005 [30]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

12

Good

III

Lee et al., 2015 [18]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

13

Very Good

III

Kanekar and Aruin, 2014 [15]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

13

Very Good

III

Claudino et al., 2013 [19]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

13

Very Good

III

Inglin and Woollacott, 1988 [11]

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

5

Poor

III

Laessoe and Voigt, 2007 [7]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

12

Good

III

Bugnariu and Sveistrup, 2006 [20]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

12

Good

III

Aloiraini, 2019 [31]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

13

Very Good

III

  1. 1 criteria fulfilled completely, 0 criteria not fulfilled completely. Quality category: poor (≤ 8), fair (9–10), good (11–12), very good (13–14), and excellent (15–16). *A level of evidence as per the hierarchy of evidence. The McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies [26]. Citation: provided the full citation for this article in APA format? (A). Study purpose: was the purpose and/or research question stated clearly? (B). Literature: was relevant background literature reviewed? (C). Study design: was a theoretical perspective identified? (D). Sampling: was the process of purposeful selection described? (E). Was sampling size justified? (F). Outcomes: were the outcome measures reliable? (G). Outcomes: were the outcome measures valid? (H). Intervention: intervention was described in detail? (I). Intervention: contamination was avoided? (J). Intervention: cointervention was avoided? (K). Results: results were reported in terms of statistical significance? (L). Results: were the analysis method(s) appropriate? (M). Results: clinical importance was reported? (N). Results: dropouts were reported? (O). Conclusions and implications: conclusions were appropriate given study methods and results (P)