Skip to main content

Table 2 Modified Quality Assessment Scale for Systematic Review with the information regarding each item score and the total score for each systematic review

From: Prescription of therapeutic exercise in migraine, an evidence-based clinical practice guideline

Studies

La Touche et al., 2020 [40]

Lemmens et al., 2019 [36]

Long et al., 2022 [37]

Luedtke et al., 2016 [38]

Varangot-Reille et al., 2021 [13]

Wu et al., 2022 [39]

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question(s) stated?

Explicitly described to allow replication

Yes

Yes

In Part

In Part

In Part

Yes

Was the search for evidence comprehensive?

Adequate number and range of databases

Yes

In Part

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alternative searches

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Adequate range of keywords

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Non-English language

Yes

In Part

Yes

In Part

Yes

No

Were the criteria for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Explicitly described to allow replication

Yes

Yes

In Part

Yes

Yes

Yes

Excludes reviews that do not adequately address inclusion and exclusion criteria

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

In Part

Was bias in the selection of articles avoided?

Two independent reviewers

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Were the criteria used for assessing the quality of included studies reported?

Explicitly described to allow replication

Yes

Yes

In Part

Yes

Yes

Yes

Were the methods used to combine and/or compare the findings of relevant studies appropriate?

Meta-analysis conducted on only homogenous data or limitations to homogeneity discussed

Yes

Yes

In Part

In Part

Yes

Yes

Confidence intervals/effect sizes reported where possible

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Were conclusions made by the author(s) appropriate?

Supported by the meta-analysis or other data analysis findings

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Conclusions address levels of evidence for each intervention/comparison

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Total

26

24

12

23

25

19

  1. Item 1: Explicitly described to allow replication (ie, 100% confident that you could replicate it). If explained but you can't be 100% confident of replication = in part; Item 2: Adequate number and range of databases (3 = in part, > 3 = yes); Item 3: Alternative searches such as manual searches, Web of Science, reference lists, contact of prominent authors or other sources of information (1 of these = in part, 2 or more = yes); Item 4: Adequate range of keywords (search likely to be sensitive); Item 5: Non-English language papers included in the search. Must explicitly state that no language restrictions were applied, or something of similar meaning to score yes; Item 6: Explicitly described to allow replication (unambiguous). If described but not 100% clear = in part; Item 7: Excludes reviews that do not adequately address inclusion and exclusion criteria. One of inclusion or exclusion = in part, both = yes;Item 8: Two independent reviewers; Item 9: Explicitly described to allow replication. If the described scale is not valid, and/or reliability is not reported, score = in part; Item 10: Meta-analysis conducted on only homogenous data or limitations to homogeneity discussed; Item 11: Confidence intervals/effect sizes reported where possible; Item 12: Supported by the meta-analysis or other data analysis findings (effect sizes, confidence intervals, etc.) in the review. If only significance levels relied upon = in part; Item 13: Conclusions address levels of evidence for each intervention/comparison (eg, level A-D evidence, strong–weak evidence, etc.). Score: No = 0; In part = 1; Yes = 2. Score < 20 = low quality; Score ≥ 20 = high quality
Back to article page

The Journal of Headache and Pain

ISSN: 1129-2377

Contact us