Criteria 1 to 4 assess external validity, Criteria 5 to 9 assess

Criteria 1 to 4 assess external validity, Criteria 5 to 9 assess internal validity, and Criterion 10 assesses statistical methods ( Box 2). Criteria were rated as ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘unclear’ where insufficient information was provided. External validity was considered sufficient if Criteria 1 to 4 were rated ‘yes’. With respect to internal validity, Criteria 5, 6, and 7 were assumed to be decisive

in determining risk of bias. A study was considered to have a low risk of bias if Criteria 5, 6, and 7 were all rated ‘yes’, a moderate risk if two of these criteria were rated ‘yes’, and a high risk if none or only one of these criteria were rated ‘yes’. After training, two reviewers (EvT, RJvdP) independently assessed methodological quality of all included studies and were not blind to journal, authors, and results. If discrepancy between reviewers persisted, Pictilisib in vitro a decisive judgement was passed by a third reviewer (CL). 1. Was a representative sample of participants used? Data were analysed Lumacaftor concentration by examining ICC and Kappa (95% CI). If at least 75% of a study’s ICC or Kappa values were above 0.75, the study was considered to have shown acceptable reliability (Burdock et al 1963, cited by Kramer and Feinstein

1981). Corresponding Kappa levels were used as assigned by Landis and Koch (1977) where < 0.00 = poor, 0.00–0.20 = slight, 0.21–0.40 = fair, 0.41–0.60 = moderate, 0.61–0.80 = substantial, and 0.81–1.00 = almost perfect reliability. In addition, reliability was

analysed relating it to characteristics of the studies (participants’ clinical characteristics, raters’ profession and training, movement performed, method of measurement) and methodological quality. Reliability from studies GBA3 not fulfilling Criteria 5 or 6 could have been underestimated, while reliability from studies not fulfilling Criterion 7 could have been overestimated. Negative scores on combinations of Criteria 5–7 could have led to bias in an unknown direction. Where one or more of these three criteria were rated ‘unknown’ because insufficient information was provided, no statement was made regarding the presence or direction of potential bias. Finally, clinical and methodological characteristics of included studies were examined for homogeneity in order to judge the possibility of statistically summarising results by calculating pooled estimates of reliability. Searching MEDLINE yielded 199 citations, of which 29 papers were retrieved in full text. After removing double citations, EMBASE (196 citations) provided another three potentially relevant studies. CINAHL (98 citations) then yielded no additional relevant articles. Hand searching of reference lists identified another 14 potentially eligible studies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>