EAI ITEMS

AUTHOR

Total %

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Akkurt

(2010)

31.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Assa (2013)

 

51.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Apivatagaroon

(2016)

33.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Carlsson (1993)

 

32.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Cheung (2012)

 

28.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Cheung (2013)

 

42.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Domenech (2013)

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Domenech (2014)

41.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Eapen (2011)

 

37.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Haim (2013)

 

45.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

?

?

Jensen (2005)

 

47.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Kastelein (2014)

 

36.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Kuru (2012)

 

41.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Negahban (2012)

 

43.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Negahban (2013)

 

46.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Piva (2009a)

 

51.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Piva (2009b)

 

61.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Rathleff (2013)

 

60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Rathleff (2015)

 

60.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Selhorst (2015)

 

48.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Selfe (2016)

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Syme (2009)

 

51.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

?

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Tan

(2010)

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Thomee (2002)

 

31.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

?

Witvrouw (2000)

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

 

% of studies addressing each item

52

84

48

44

44

72

36

48

0

0

96

0

84

72

76

24

16

4

12

4

20

0

0

0

0

4

12

0

4

0

12

24

28

4

8

8

0

0

12

4

4

0

0

 

????/?                SUPPLEMENTARY FILE 1: QUALITY ASSESSMENT GRID          NA =                   UD =                              YES =              PARTIAL =                                 NO =

Studies divided into quartiles determined by quality scores

Author

overall %

1st Quartile

Cheung (2012)

28.3

Akkurt (2010)

31.3

Thomee (2002)

31.7

Carlsson (1993)

32.9

Apivatgaroon (2016)

33.3

Kastelein (2015)

36.6

Eapen (2011)

37.1

2nd Quartile

Domenech (2013)

40

Kuru (2012)

41.2

Domenech (2014)

41.4

Cheung (2013)

42.6

Negahban (2012)

43.3

Haim (2013)

45.2

3rd
Quartile

Negahban (2013)

46.7

Jensen (2005)

47.1

Selhorst (2015)

48.3

Selfe (2016)

50

Witvrouw (2000)

50

Assa (2013)

51.5

Syme (2009)

51.5

4th
Quartile

Piva (2009a)

51.6

Tan (2010)

53

Rathleff (2013)

60

Rahtleff (2015)

60.6

Piva (2009b)

61.7

 

Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument questions

PART 1: STUDY DESCRIPTION

Hypothesis/aim/objective

1.    Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described?

2.    Are all the exposure (patellofemoral pain) variables/interventions (diagnoses) clearly described?

3.    Are the main outcomes (psychological variables) clearly described?

4.    Is the study design clearly described?

Study population

5.    Is the source of subject population (including sampling frame) clearly described?

6.    Are the eligibility criteria for subject selection clearly described?

7.    Are the participation rates reported? Are ascertainment of record availability described?

8.    Are the characteristics of study participants described?

9.    Have the characteristics of subjects lost after entry into the study or subjects not participating from among the eligible population been described? Have the details of unavailable records been described?

10.  10. Have all important adverse effects been reported that may be consequences of the intervention(s)?

Covariates and confounders

11.  Are the important covariates and confounders described in terms of individual variables (intrinsic risk factors)?

12.  Are the important covariates and confounders in terms of environment variables (extrinsic risk factors) described?

13.  Are the statistical methods clearly described?

14.  Are the main findings (psychological results) of the study clearly described?

15.  Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcome or exposures (i.e. confidence intervals, standard deviations)

16.  Does the study provide estimates of the statistical parameters (e.g. regression coefficients or parameter estimates such as odds ratio)?

17.  Are sample size calculations performed and reported?

PART 2: STUDY’S METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

Group comparability

18.  Is the comparison/reference (PFP-free) group comparable to the exposed/intervention/case (PFP) group?

19.  Is the participation rate adequate? Is the ascertainment of record availability adequate?

20.  Are the study subjects from different groups recruited over the same period of time?

21.  Are subject losses or unavailable records after entry into the study taken into account?

22.  Are newly incident cases taken into account?

Randomization

23.  Are the study subjects randomized into groups?

24.  Is the randomized assignment to groups concealed from both subjects and observers until recruitment is complete and irrevocable?

PART 2.2: MEASUREMENT QUALITY

Exposure

25.  Are the exposure variables (PFP diagnostic criteria) reliable?

26.  Are the exposure variables (PFP diagnostic criteria) valid?

27.  Are the methods of assessing the exposure (PFP) variables similar for each participant?

28.  Is exposure conducted at a time prior to the occurrence of disease or symptoms?

Blind measure

29.  Are the observers blinded to subject groupings when the exposure/intervention assessment was made or the disease status of subjects when conducting exposure assessment? (Are observers blinded to PFP/control group allocation when psychological analysis is conducted?)

30.  Are the subjects blinded to their grouping when the exposure/intervention assessment was made?

31.  Are the main outcome (psychological) measures reliable?

32.  Are the main outcome (psychological) measures valid?

33.  Are the methods of assessing the outcome (psychological) variables standard across all groups?

Observation period

34.  Are the observations (psychological measurements) taken over the same time for all groups?

PART 2.3: DATA ANALYSIS

Covariates and confounders

35.  Is the prior history of disease (PFP) and/or symptoms collected and included in the analysis?

36.  Is there adequate adjustment for covariates and confounders in terms of individual variables (intrinsic risk factors) in the analyses?

37.  Is there adequate adjustment for covariates and confounders in terms of environment (extrinsic risk factors) variables (other than exposure) in the analyses?

Other

38.  Is the minimum follow-up time since initial exposure sufficient enough to detect a relationship between exposure/intervention and outcome?

39.  Do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of subjects in cohort/intervention studies; is the time period between the exposure and outcome (psychosocial measurement follow-up) the same for cases and controls?

40.  Are the outcome data reported by levels of exposure (PFP duration)?

41.  Are the outcome/exposure (psychosocial) data reported by subgroups (intrinsic or extrinsic risk factors listed below) of subjects?

PART 2.4: GENERALIZATION OF RESULTS

42.  Can the study results be applied to the eligible population?

43.  Can the study results be applied to other relevant populations?