Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-4inkOmslag | Page 9

17
18
19
20
UTD: unable to determine.
Yes/No/UTD
Yes/No/UTD
Yes/No/UTD
Yes/No/UTD
Yes/No/UTD
Yes/No/UTD
Yes/No/UTD
Item
based
dredging
1
0
16
Yes/No/UTD
243
13
Yes/No
Yes/No
12
Yes/No
11
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
10
Yes/No
9
4
6
7
Yes/No
3
Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly
described?
Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described
in the Introduction or Methods section?
Are the characteristics of the patients included in the
study clearly described?
Are the interventions of interest clearly described?
Are the main findings of the study clearly described?
Does the study provide estimates of the random
variability in the data for the main outcomes?
Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been
described?
Have actual probability values been reported?
External validity
Were the subjects asked to participate in the study
representative of the entire population from which they
were recruited?
Were those subjects who were prepared to participate
representative of the entire population from which they
were recruited?
Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients
were treated, representative of the treatment the
majority of patients receive?
Internal validity - bias
If any of the results of the study were based on ”data
dredging”, was this made clear?
In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust
for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or in
case-control studies, is the time period between the
intervention and outcome the same for cases and
controls?
Were the statistical tests used to assess the main
outcomes appropriate?
Was compliance with the intervention/s reliable?
Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid
and reliable)?
Possible
answers
Reporting
Main study
clearly
described?
Modified Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Study Quality
2
Appendix 1. Modified Downs and Black Checklist
1
Davies AH. Randomised controlled trial: potential benefit of
a footplate neuromuscular electrical stimulation device in
patients with chronic venous disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc
2017; 53: 114–121.
13. Wou J, Williams KJ, Davies AH. Compression stockings
versus neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices in
the management of occupational leg swelling. Int J Angiol
2016; 25: 104–109.
14. Man IOW, Lepar GS, Morrissey MC, Cywinski JK. Effect of
neuromuscular electrical stimulation on foot/ankle volume
during standing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 630–634.
15. Man IOW, Morrissey MC, Cywinski JK. Effect of neuromus-
cular electrical stimulation on ankle swelling in the early
period after ankle sprain. Phys Ther 2007; 87: 53–65.
16. Devrimsel G, Turkyilmaz AK, Yildrim M, Beyazal MS. The
effects of whirlpool bath and neuromuscular electrical
stimulation on complex regional pain syndrome. J Phys
Ther Si 2015; 27: 27–30.
17. Faghri PD. The effects of neuromuscular stimulation indu-
ced muscle contraction versus elevation on hand edema
in CVA patients. J Hand Ther 1997; 10: 29–34.
18. Broderick BJ. Kennedy C, Breen PP, Kerns SR, O’Laighin G.
Patient tolerance of neuromuscular electrical stimulation
(NMES) in the presence of orthopaedic implants. Med Eng
Phys 2011; 33: 56–61.
19. Nayak BK. Understanding the relevance of sample size
calculation. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010; 58: 469–470.
Effectiveness of NMES for reducing oedema: a systematic review
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019