Table 4

A tabular comparison of trial quality, using Down and Black quality checklist, and risk of bias, using RoB2

StudyOutcome measureDowns and black Quality checklistCochrane RoB2 tool
Summary scoreQuality categoryOverall risk of bias judgement
Wright et al, 201721 FAAM-ADL
FAAM-Sport
CAIT (ADL)
22 High qualityHigh risk
Donovan et al, 201623 FAAM-ADL
FAAM-Sport
22 High qualityHigh risk
McKeon and Wikstrom, 201630 FAAM-ADL
FAAM-Sport
23 High qualityHigh risk
Cruz-Diaz et al,
201524
CAIT (ADL) 21 High qualityHigh risk
Cruz-Diaz et al, 201525 CAIT (ADL) 21 High qualityHigh risk
Lubbe et al, 201527 FADI-ADL 23 High qualityHigh risk
Salom-Moreno et al, 201528 FAAM-ADL
FAAM-Sport
22 High qualityHigh risk
Collins et al, 201426 FAAM-ADL
FAAM-Sport
11 Moderate qualityHigh risk
Beazell et al, 201222 FAAM-Sport 24 High qualityHigh risk
Schaefer and Sandrey29 FAAM-ADL
FAAM-Sport
20 Moderate qualityHigh risk
McKeon et al, 200831 FADI-ADL
FADI-Sport
17 Moderate qualityHigh risk
Overall body of evidence Patient-reported function Mean=21
Min–max=11–24
High quality High risk
  • Cut-off scores to differentiate quality categories: low quality=1–10; moderate quality=11–20; high quality=21–31.

  • CAIT, Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool; FAAM-ADL, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activities of Daily Living Subscale; FAAM-Sport, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Sports Subscale.