Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality scores and remarks of the included studies

From: Training effects on motor–cognitive dual-task performance in older adults

Study

Quality criteria

Quality score

General remarks

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

RCTs

Hall b [23]

x

u

u

u

u

x

x

(x)

1 + 2

k: statistical information missing, e.g., ES

Hiyamazu [29]

x

x

x

x

u

u

x

u

x

x

x

5 + 3

 

Silsudapol [66]

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

9 + 2

Small SS

Silsudapol [67]

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

9 + 2

Small SS

Trombetti [80]

(x)

u

x

x

u

u

x

x

x

x

x

x

5 + 3

Randomization process unclear

Westlake [93]

x

x

u

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

6 + 2

 

Age comparison designs

Dault [16]

    

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

4 + 2

6 trails only – f+g implicit

Doumas [18]

    

x

u

x

x

x

x

x

4 + 2

g suggested out of d and f

Bisson [9]

u

x

u

x

u

x

x

x

x

(x)

4 + 2

g suggested out of d and f

Heiden and Lajoie [28]

x

x

u

u

u

x

x

x

(x)

3 + 2

Randomization process was weak

Lajoie [79]

x

u

u

u

u

x

x

x

x

2 + 3

 

Toulotte [79]

  

x

u

u

u

 

x

(x)

x

(x)

2 + 1

a: classification in faller/non-faller; k: statistical information missing, e.g., ES

You [104]

x

u

x

u

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

6 + 2

 
  1. x “yes” score, u “unclear” score, free fields “not relevant”; – “no” score, (x) “was done, but with general remarks”, RCT ES effect size, SS sample size
  2. a — acceptable method of randomization; b — concealed treatment allocation; c — similar group values at baseline; d — blinded assessor; e — avoided or similar cointerventions; f — acceptable compliance; g — acceptable dropout rate; h — similar timing of the outcome assessment in all groups; i — intention-to-treat analysis; h — appropriate description of the intervention (content, intensity, duration); j — appropriate description of the measurements; k — adequate report of measurement results and statistics