Interventions for increasing ankle joint dorsiflexion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Results from quality assessment (23 studies)

Study ID	Ref	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	Quality score (/14)
Bohannon 1994	[31]	-	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	8
Christiansen 2008	[12]	+	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	11
Dananberg 2000	[13]	+	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	-	-	+	-	-	-	4
De Souza 2008	[39]	+	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	8
Dinh 2011	[1]	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	10
Draper 1998	[14]	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	-	+	-	4
Etnyre 1986	[15]	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	4
Fryer 2002	[16]	+	+	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	8
Gajdosik 2005	[5]	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	9
Gajdosik 2007	[18]	+	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	-	-	-	6
Grieve 2011	[2]	+	+	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	7
Johanson 2009	[3]	+	+	-	+	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	-	+	-	7
Kasser 2009	[19]	+	+	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	6
Knight 2001	[21]	+	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	8
Macklin 2012	[6]	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	5
McNair 1996	[22]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	4
Peres 2002	[23]	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	-	+	-	6
Pratt 2003	[32]	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	6
Rees 2007	[25]	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	7
Samukawa 2011	[27]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	5
Venturini 2007	[40]	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	-	+	-	5
Youdas 2003	[29]	+	+	-	+	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	9
Zakas 2006	[30]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	-	5

1. Eligibility criteria were specified.
2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups.
3. Allocation was concealed.
4. The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators.
5. There was blinding of all subjects.
6. There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy.
7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome.
8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups.
9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated.
10. The results of between group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome.
11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome.
12. Was the sample size justified?
13. Were the outcome measures reliable?
14. Were the outcome measures valid?

ISSN: 1757-1146