Table 1. 10 Items of Quality Assessment Checklist. Original checklist was designed by Kmet and his team (2004), and this study adopted a revised version that presented in Martens’ systematic review (Kmet et al., 2004; Martens et al., 2015b). Reviewers would score each item with 0, 1, 2 or NA if the item was not applicable for that study. The summation of scores was calculated for each study and the final score was presented in percentage.
| No. |
Question |
Score |
| 1 |
Question/Objective sufficiently described? |
0, 1, 2 |
| 2 |
Study design evident and appropriate? |
0, 1, 2 |
| 3 |
Connection to a theoretic framework/wider body of knowledge? |
0, 1, 2 |
| 4 |
Subject characteristics sufficiently described? |
/ |
| 4a |
Age (Mean and Standard Deviation) |
0, 1, 2 |
| 4b |
Gender |
0, 2 |
| 4c |
Swimming/Activity Level of participants |
0, 1, 2 |
| 5 |
Data collection methods clearly described and systematic? |
/ |
| 5a |
Research Protocol |
0, 1, 2 |
| 5b |
Type of EMG system |
0, 1, 2 |
| 5c |
Studied muscles |
0, 1, 2 |
| 5d |
Unilateral or Bilateral |
0, 1, 2 or NA |
| 6 |
Data analysis clearly described and systematic? |
/ |
| 6a |
EMG filters |
0 or 2 |
| 6b |
Normalization Method |
0, 1, 2 |
| 6c |
Data Processing Protocol |
0, 1, 2 |
| 7 |
Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results? |
0, 1, 2 or NA |
| 8 |
Conclusions supported by the results? |
0, 1, 2 |
| 9 |
Number of participants sufficient to draw conclusions? |
0, 2, 4,6 |
| 10 |
Statistical analysis is described and appropriate? |
0, 1, 2 or NA |
Reviewers would score each item with 0, 1, 2 or NA if the item was not applicable for that study. The summation of scores was calculated for each study and the final score was presented in percentage.
