Table 2 Methodological quality assessment scores of each study
From: The role of exergaming in Parkinson’s disease rehabilitation: a systematic review of the evidence
Question | Scoring criteria | Assad et al.[25] | Zettergren et al.[22] | Pompeu et al.[21] | Mendes et al.[20] | Esculier et al.[19] | Mhatre et al.[23] | Hertz et al.[24] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inclusion/exclusion criteria detailed | 1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | .5 | 1 | 1 |
Participant characteristics detailed | Number | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Age | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Sex | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Disease severity | .5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Sample size justified | 1 = yes; 0 = no | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Randomisation explained | 1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no | na | na | 1 | na | na | na | na |
Research design clearly stated | 1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no | .5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Exergaming sessions explained | 1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no | .5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Baseline and post test data presented | 1 = yes; .5 = yes lacking detail; 0 = no | .5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |