Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Assessment of methodological quality of included studies using theDowns and Black scale (27)

From: The effect of interactive cognitive-motor training in reducing fall risk in older people: a systematic review

First author, year Risk assesment items
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Agmon, 2011 [43] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Bieryla, 2013 [64] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Bisson, 2007 [46] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Chao, 2013 [65] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Chen, 2012 [47] 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Cho, 2013 [39] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
de Bruin, 2011 [59] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Duque, 2013 [40] 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Franco, 2012 [57] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Fung, 2012 [35] 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
Griffin, 2012 [44] 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Hsu, 2011 [29] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Keogh, 2013 [60] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
Kim, 2013 [48] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Kosse, 2011 [49]/Lamoth, 2011 [66] 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Kubicki, 2014 [45] 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lai, 2012 [50] 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Laver, 2012 [37] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
Lee, 2013 [38] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
Maillot, 2012 [51] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Mendes, 2012 [31] 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Mirelman, 2011 [32] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Orsega-Smith, 2012 [52] 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Padala, 2012 [36] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Pichierri, 2012a [62] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Pichierri, 2012b [61] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Pluchino, 2012 [53] 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Pompeu, 2012 [33] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Rendon, 2012 [54] 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Rosenberg, 2010 [30] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Schoene, 2013 [58] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Studenski, 2010 [55] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Suarez, 2006 [41] 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Szturm, 2011 [63] 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Williams, 2010 [42] 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Yen, 2011 [34] 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Young, 2010 [56] 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
  1. Risk assessment items: Items 1–10 Reporting – 1. hypothesis/aim/objectives described?; 2. Main outcomes described?; 3. Participant characteristics described?; 4. Intervention/s described?; 5. distributions of principal confounders in each group described?; 6. Main findings described?; 7. Provision of estimates of random variability in the data for the main outcomes?; 8. Reporting of adverse events?; 9. Characteristics of participants lost to follow-up described?; 10. Actual probability values reported?; items 11–13 External validity – 11. Participants asked to participate representative for population from which they were recruited?; 12. Participants prepared to participate representative for population from which they were recruited?; 13. staff, places, and facilities where the participants were treated representative of the treatment the majority of participants receive?; items 14–20 Internal validity (bias) – 14. Blinding of study participants?; 15. Blinding of outcome assessors?; 16. If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear?; 17. In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of participants, or in case–control studies, is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls?; 18. Statistical tests appropriate?; 19. Was compliance with intervention/s reliable?; 20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)?; items 21–26 Internal validity (confounding) – 21. Were the participants in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited from the same population?; 22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited over the same period of time?; 23. Randomisation, and if yes procedure described?; 24. Allocation concealment?; 25. adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn?; 26. Losses of participants to follow-up taken into account?; item 27 power – 27. Power analysis done a priori?; ratings: no = 0, unable to determine = 0, yes = 1; rating item 5: no = 0, partially = 1, yes = 2.