Interventions to improve gross motor performance in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: a meta-analysis

BMC Pediatrics

Table 5 Meta-analysis: Quality of outcome assessment summary

Studies	Quality assessment				Patients, n		Effect^a		Quality
	Limitation of study design	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Reporting Bias	Intervention Group	Comparator Group	SMD^b (95% CI)
Most Conservative^h	Serious risk^c	No serious inconsistency^d	Serious imprecision^e	Trial context similar^f	Undetected^g	159	178	−0.1 (−0.3 to −0.2)	Low quality
Least Conservative^h	Serious risk^c	No serious inconsistency^d	Serious imprecision^e	Trial context similar^f	Detected^g	159	178	−0.8 (−1.1 to −0.5)	Very low quality

^aPositive values favour the intervention group
^bThe SMD of the intervention group compared to the comparator group
^cMore than 25% of the participants from studies with low methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score < 7 points)
^d25% of more of trials don’t have findings in the same direction
^eFewer than 400 participants for each outcome
^fTrial context is not exactly the same as the review question
^g Inspection of funnel plot asymmetry
^hmeta-analysis studies included (n = 9)

ISSN: 1471-2431