Table 3

Overall and domain-level risk of bias judgements for each review outcome, intervention comparisons, and follow-up assessments time-points

Study	Outcome	Intervention comparison	Follow-up assessment time-points	Bias arising due to the randomisation process	Bias due to deviation from intended interventions (adhering to the intervention)	Missing outcome data	Bias due to measurement of the outcome	Bias due to selection of the reported result	Overall risk of bias judgement
Wright et al 21	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	Wobble board balance training vs ankle strengthening resistance tubing	Day intervention ceased	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Some concerns	Some concerns	High risk
Donovan et al 23	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	Exercise rehabilitation using destabilisation device vs exercise rehabilitation using no destabilisation device	48-hour follow-up	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
McKeon and Wikstrom30	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	Ankle joint mobilisation vs plantar massage vs triceps surae stretching vs control	72-hour follow-up	Low risk	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
McKeon and Wikstrom30	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport		4-week follow-up	Low risk	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
Cruz-Diaz et al 24	CAIT	Group 1: intervention Group 2: sham intervention Group 3: control group	3-week follow-up	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns	High risk
Cruz-Diaz et al 24	CAIT		6-month follow-up	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns	High risk
Cruz-Diaz et al 25	CAIT	Comprehensive exercise programme vs general lower body strength programme	Day intervention ceased	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
Lubbe et al 27	FADI-ADL	Manual therapy+rehabilitation vs rehabilitation alone	Day intervention ceased	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	High risk	High risk	High risk
Salom-Moreno et al 28	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	TrP-DN+strength/proprioceptive training vs strength/proprioceptive training	4-week follow-up	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
Collins et al 26	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	Strain counterstrain vs sham strain counterstrain	Day intervention ceased	High risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns	High risk
Beazell et al 22	FAAM-Sport	Group 1: proximal tibio-fibular manipulation vs Group 2: distal tibio-fibular manipulation vs Group 3: control group—no intervention	Day 1 of intervention	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
			Day 7 of intervention	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
			Day 14 of intervention	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
			Day 21 of intervention	Some concerns	High risk	Low risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
Schaefer and Sandrey29	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	GISTM+balance training vs sham GISTM+balance training vs balance training	Day intervention ceased	High risk	High risk	High risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk
McKeon et al 31	FAAM-ADL FAAM-Sport	Balance training vs control group	4-week follow-up	Some concerns	High risk	High risk	High risk	Some concerns	High risk

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; GISTM, Graston Instrument-assisted Soft Tissue Mobilisation; TrP-DN, TriggerPoint-Dry Needling.