Do physical fitness and motor skill performances in underweight children differ from normal weight peers? A meta-analysis

Table 1 Critical appraisal (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)

Legend: 1.1: The study addresses an appropriate and clearly focused question, 1.2: The cases and controls are taken from comparable populations, 1.3: The same exclusion criteria are used for both cases and controls; 1.4: What percentage (%) of each group (cases and controls) participated in the study, 1.5: Comparison is made between participants and non-participants to establish their similarities or differences, 1.6: Cases are clearly defined and differentiated from controls, 1.7: It is clearly established that controls are non-cases, 1.8: Measures will have been taken to prevent knowledge of primary exposure influencing case ascertainment, 1.9: Exposure status is measured in a standard, valid and reliable way, 1.10: The main potential confounders are identified and taken into account in the design and analysis, 1.11: Confidence intervals are provided, 2.1 How well was the study done to minimize the risk of bias or confounding?.
“ + + ” All or most of the criteria have been fulfilled. Where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions
of the study or review are thought very unlikely to alter. “ + ” Some of the criteria have been fulfilled. Those criteria that have not been fulfilled or not adequately described are thought unlikely to alter the conclusions.”- “ Few or no criteria fulfilled. The conclusions of the study are thought likely or very likely to alter; H: High Quality, A: Acceptable quality; R: Reject

ISSN: 1471-2431