Table 2 Evaluation of the certainty of the evidence presented for each outcome.

From: Neuromuscular exercise in children with Down Syndrome: a systematic review

Certainty evaluation

No. of patients

Effect

Certainty

Importance

No. of studies

Study design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirect evidence

Imprecision

Other considerations

Neuromuscular Exercise

Control

Relative (95% CI)

Absolute (95% CI)

Chest muscle strength. Intervention: Mechanotherapy. Measuring instrument: Maximum resistance (MR) (Shield 2010 and 2013) (Follow-up: Mean 11 weeks; evaluated using MR (kg))

2

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Seriousa

None

45

46

MD 8.51 higher. (2.35 to 14.67)

MODERATE

CRITICAL

Muscle strength of the lower limbs. Intervention: Mechanotherapy. Measuring instrument: Maximum resistance (MR) (Shield 2010 and 2013) (Follow-up: Mean 10 weeks; evaluated using MR (kg))

2

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Seriousa

None

45

46

MD 21.54 higher. (1.64 to 41.43)

MODERATE

CRITICAL

Muscle strength of the lower limbs. Intervention: Isokinetic training. Instrument: Maximum peak torque (Newtons) (Eid 2017) (Follow-up: 12 weeks; evaluated using Maximum peak torque (Newtons))

1

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

16

15

MD 2.68 higher (1.68 to 3.68)

HIGH

CRITICAL

Hip and knee muscle strength. Intervention: Exercise with treadmill and Wii. Instrument: Manual dynamometry (Lbs) (Lin 2012) (Follow-up: 18 weeks)

1

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

46

46

MD 1.08 higher. (0.8 higher to 1.36 higher)

HIGH

CRITICAL

Knee muscle strength. Intervention: Isometric training. Instrument: Manual dynamometer (kg) (Ulrich 2011) (Follow-up: weekly for 12 months)

1

Randomized trials

Very seriousb

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

19

27

MD 3.18 higher. (1.87 higher to 4.5 higher)

LOW

CRITICAL

Knee muscle strength. Intervention: Conventional physiotherapy and therapeutic vibration (Eid 2015 and Emara 2016) Instrument: Manual dynamometry (Newtons) (Follow-up: 12 weeks)

2

Randomized trials

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Seriousc

None

32

30

MD 2.53 higher. (1.89 higher to 3.16 higher)

LOW

CRITICAL

Balance. Intervention: Conventional physiotherapy plus isokinetic training/core stability exercises (Eid 2017 and Sobhy 2016). Instrument: Stability Index (Biodex System)) (Follow-up: 12 weeks)

2

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

16

15

MD 0.2 lower (0.29 lower to 0.12 lower)

HIGH

CRITICAL

Balance. Intervention: Neuromuscular exercise using unstable surfaces and balloons (Jankowics 2012). Instrument: Path length center of gravity (mm) (Follow-up: 12 weeks)

1

Randomized trials

Very seriousd

Not serious

Not serious

Very seriouse

None

20

20

MD 336.54 lower (948.52 lower to 275.44 higher)

VERY LOW

CRITICAL

Unipedal balance. Intervention: Isometric training and unipedal balance (Ulrich 2011). Instrument: Unipedal balance maintained (seconds) (Follow-up: 12 months)

1

Randomized trials

Very seriousd

Not serious

Not serious

Serious

None

17

27

MD 2.54 higher. (0.62 higher to 4.45 higher)

VERY LOW

CRITICAL

  1. CI, Confidence Interval; MD, Mean Difference.
  2. Explanations.
  3. aVery wide confidence intervals. In one of the studies, the change is not statistically significant.
  4. bThe trend is high risk 5/ 7.
  5. cLarge confidence intervals.
  6. dHigh risk 5/7.
  7. eVery large confidence intervals.