# The Effects of Exergames on Muscle Architecture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
## 3 Results
### Quality Assessment of Included Studies
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON]** \\  & & **(2021)**[107] & **(2019)**[108] & **(2020)**[109] & **(2018)**[110] & **et al. (2021)**[111] \\ \hline
**Q19** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Was compliance with the \\ intervention/s reliable? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline
**Q20** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Were the main outcome measures \\ used accurate (valid and reliable)? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Internal validity—Confounding (selection Bias)} \\ \hline
**Q21** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Were the patients in different \\ intervention groups (trials and \\ cohort studies), or were the cases \\ and controls (case-control studies) \\ recruited from the same \\ population? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline
**Q22** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Were study subjects in different \\ intervention groups (trials and \\ cohort studies), or were the cases \\ and controls (case-control studies) \\ recruited over the same period of \\ time? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline
**Q23** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Were study subjects randomised \\ to intervention groups? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(0\) & \(1\) & \(0\) & \(0\) \\ \hline
**Q24** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Was the randomised intervention \\ assignment concealed from both \\ patients and health care staff until \\ recruitment was complete and \\ irrevocable? \\ \end{tabular} & UTD & \(0\) & UTD & \(0\) & \(0\) \\ \hline
**Q25** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Was there an adequate adjustment \\ for confounding in the analyses \\ from which the main findings \\ were drawn? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline
**Q26** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Were losses of patients to \\ follow-up taken into account? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Power} \\ \hline
**Q27** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Did the study have sufficient \\ power to detect a clinically \\ important effect, where the \\ probability value for a difference \\ resulting from chance is less \\ than 5\%? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Power} \\ \hline
**Q28** &
\begin{tabular}{c} Did the study have sufficient \\ power to detect a clinically \\ important effect, where the \\ probability value for a difference \\ resulting from chance is less \\ than 5\%? \\ \end{tabular} & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Power} \\ \hline
**Total** & \(21\) & \(19\) & \(21\) & \(19\) & \(18\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Quality of evidence} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Good} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Abbbreviations: UTD, Unable to determine;} \\
0, no; 1, yes. \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._Figure 3: Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. Figure 2: Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study (created via RevMan 5.4.1).