Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality of included studies evaluated using the Brink and Louw critical appraisal tool

From: Non-radiographic methods of measuring global sagittal balance: a systematic review

Study

Key information

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

High-quality > 60%

1

de Seze [21]

✓

✗

✓

n/a

n/a

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

✗

✓

✗

✓

6/9 = 66%

2

Grosso 2002 [31]

✓

✓

n/a

✗

✗

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

n/a

✗

✓

4/9 = 44%

3

Kellis 2008 [23]

✓

✓

n/a

✓

✓

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

7/9 = 77%

4

Knott 2016 [22]

✓

✗

✓

✗

✗

✗

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✗

✓

8/13 = 62%

5

Legaye 2012 [13]

✓

✗

✓

✗

✗

✗

✗

✗

✓

✓

✓

✗

✓

6/13 = 46%

6

Liljenqvist 1998 [19]

✓

✗

✓

n/a

n/a

n/a

✗

✗

✓

✓

✓

✗

✓

6/9 = 66%

7

Mannion 2004 [24]

✓

✗

n/a

✓

✗

✗

n/a

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

4/9 = 44%

8

Mohokum 2010 [20]

✓

✓

n/a

✗

✗

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

5/9 = 55%

9

Milanesi 2011 [25]

✓

✗

n/a

✓

✓

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

6/9 = 66%

10

Negrini 2001 [26]

✓

✗

n/a

✗

✗

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

✓

5/9 = 55%

11

Schroeder [27]

✓

✓

n/a

✗

✓

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

6/9 = 66%

12

Zabjek 1999 [28]

✓

✗

n/a

✗

✗

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

5/9 = 55%

13

Zaina 2012 [29]

✗

✗

n/a

✗

✗

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

4/9 = 44%

14

Zheng 2010 [30]

✓

✗

n/a

✗

✗

✗

n/a

✓

n/a

✓

n/a

✗

✓

4/9 = 44%

  1. 1 description of study population, 2 description of raters, 3 explanation of reference standards (validity only), 4 between rater blinding (reliability only), 5 within rater blinding (reliability), 6 variation of testing order (reliability), 7 time period between index test and reference standard (validity), 8 time period between repeated measures (reliability), 9 independency of reference standard from index test (validity), 10 description of index test procedure, 11 description of reference test procedure (validity), 12 explanation of any withdrawals, 13 appropriate statistics methods. ✓ Reported, ✗ Not reported