Using a Module-Based Analysis Framework for Investigating Muscle Coordination during Walking in Individuals Poststroke: A Literature Review and Synthesis

Table 5

Modified downs and black scores.

Article	Reporting							External validity		Internal validity: bias		Internal validity: confounding				Total	Percent
	1. Is the hypothesis or objective clearly stated?	2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described?	3. Are the characteristics of the participants clearly described?	5. Are the distributions of principle confounders clearly described?	6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described?	7. Estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcome?	10. Have actual probability values been reported?	11. Were the subjects asked representative of the entire population?	12. Were those subjects used representative of the entire population?	16. Were any of the results based on “data dredging”?	18. Were the statistical tests used to assess main outcome measures appropriate?	20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate? (valid and reliable?)	21. Were cases and controls from the same population?	22. Were the cases and controls recruited over the same period of time?	25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analysis?
Allen et al. [25]	1	1	1	1	1	1	NA	0	0	1	NA	1	0	1	NA	9	69%
Barroso et al. [34]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	NA	NA	1	12	75%
Bowden et al. [26]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	12	75%
Clark et al. [14]	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	13	81%
Coscia et al. [27]	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	11	69%
Ferrante et al. [28]	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	NA	1	0	1	1	9	60%
Gizzi et al. [29]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	11	69%
Hashiguchi et al. [30]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	12	75%
Kautz et al. [31]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	13	81%
Routson et al. [32]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	13	81%
Routson et al. [33]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	13	81%