Skip to main content

Table 2 Levels of evidence and critical appraisal scores

From: Satisfaction analysis of overground gait exoskeletons in people with neurological pathology. a systematic review

Study

OCEBM level and study design

Items on modified McMaster critical appraisal tool (MMCAT)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Raw score and %

Awad 2020 [46]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

1

1

1

1

0

10/13; 76.9%

Birch 2017 [39]

IV; Cohort

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

N/A

N/A

0

1

1

N/A

1

8/11; 72,7%

Bortole 2015 [48]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

0

0

1

7/13; 53.8%

Chihara 2016 [47]

IV; Case series

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

N/A

0

0

0

0

1

0

3/13; 23.1%

Corbianco 2021 [38]

IIB; RCT

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

7/14; 50.0%

Del-Ama 2015 [41]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

0

1

1

9/13; 69.2%

Dijsseldonk 2020 [13]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

N/A

1

9/12; 75%

Esquenazi 2012 [37]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

0

1

9/13; 69.2%

Fernández-Vázquez 2021 [50]

IV; Cross-sectional

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

N/A

0

1

1

1

N/A

1

11/12; 91.7%

Gómez-Vargas 2021 [45]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

N/A

1

1

1

N/A

1

10/11; 90.9%

Høyer 2020 [44]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

N/A

0

1

1

1

1

1

9/13; 69.2%

Jyräkoski 2021 [49]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

1

1

10/13; 76.9%

Kozlowski 2017 [51]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

1

1

10/13; 76.9%

Kwon 2020 [36]

IV; Cross-sectional

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

0

1

10/13; 76.9%

López-Larraz 2016 [32]

IV; Case series

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

0

0

7/13; 53.8%

Nam 2019 [43]

IB; RCT

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

10/14; 71.4%

Platz 2016 [35]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

1

1

10/13; 76.9%

Puyuelo-Quintana 2020 [53]

IV; Cross-sectional

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

N/A

0

1

1

N/A

1

9/11; 81.8%

Sale 2016 [33]

IIIB; Case series

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

1

0

1

1

0

8/13; 61.5%

Sale 2018 [34]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

1

1

1

1

0

10/13; 76.9%

Swank 2020 [52]

IIB; Cohort

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

N/A

0

1

1

1

0

0

7/13; 53.8%

Tamburella 2020 [40]

IV; Case series

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

N/A

0

0

1

1

1

1

10/13; 76.9%

Villa-Parra 2019 [42]

IV; Case series

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

N/A

N/A

0

1

0

N/A

0

3/11; 27.3%

  1. MMCAT items to be scored: (1) Was the purpose stated clearly?; (2) Was relevant background literature reviewed?; (3) Was the sample described in detail?; (4) Was the sample size justified?; (5) Were the outcome measures reliable?; (6) Were the outcome measures valid?; (7) Intervention was described in detail?; (8) Contamination was avoided?; (9) Cointervention was avoided?; (10) Results were reported in terms of statistical significance?; 11. Were the analysis method/s appropriate?; 12. Clinical importance was reported?; 13. Drop-outs were reported?; 14. Conclusions were appropriate given study methods and results?. 1 = yes, 0 = no or not addressed, N/A = not applicable. OCEBM: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence.