| Study
Design and Presentation of Findings |
| Item
1: Was the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
2: Were all analyses planned at the outset of study? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
3: If data dredging (establish objectives, hypothesis and endpoint parameters
without scientific reason) was used, was the spectrum of the data justified
by any concepts? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
4: Were ALL the outcome measures and parameters (including all data reduction
methods or derived parameters) clearly described and defined in the Objectives
or Methods section? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
5: Were the time points or period for ALL the outcome measures clearly described? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
6: Were the main outcome measures appropriate to describe the targeted conditions? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
7: Were the key findings described clearly? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
8: Were ALL the contour plots that were used for comparison presented with
the same colour scale? |
| Score |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
83.3% |
| Subject
Recruitment |
| Item
9: Were the characteristics of the model subject clearly described? |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
75.0% |
| Item
10: Were the principal confounders of the model subject clearly described?
(Age, sex, or body weight, and height) |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
75.0% |
| Item
11: Was the model subject participated in the study representative of the
population with the targeted clinical conditions or demographic features? |
| Score |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
| Item
12: Were the targeted intervention or clinical condition clearly described?
(with details in the severity, class, design/dimensions of implants, or
details in surgical surgery) |
| Score |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
| Model
Reconstruction and Configuration |
| Item
13: Was the model reconstruction modality for the body parts and ALL other
items, such as implants, clearly described (e.g. MRI, 3D-scanning, CAD)? |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
91.7% |
| Item
14: Were ALL important technical specifications (e.g. resolution) for the
reconstruction modality clearly described? |
| Score |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
41.7% |
| Item
15: Was the posture or position of the body parts controlled during the
acquisition process (e.g. MRI, CT) of the model reconstruction? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
33.3% |
| Item
16: Were the model reconstruction methods for ALL components clearly described
including those requiring additional procedures (e.g. connecting points
for drawing ligaments from MRI)? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
58.3% |
| Item
17: Were the orientation or relative position among the components of the
model assembly (where appropriate) clearly described? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
18: Was the type of mesh for ALL components, including the order of magnitude
of the elements, clearly described? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
50.0% |
| Item
19: Were the material properties for ALL components clearly described and
justified? (e.g. with reference) |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
20: Were ALL the contact or interaction behaviours in the model clearly
described and justified? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Boundary
and Loading Condition (Simulation) |
| Item
21: Were the boundary and loading conditions clearly described? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
22: Was the boundary and loading condition sufficiently simulating the common
activity/scenario of the conditions? (e.g. if the research or inference
is targeted to ambulation or daily activities, simulations of balanced standing
or pre-set compressive load are insufficient) |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
75.0% |
| Item
23: Was the model driven by the boundary condition acquired from the same
model subject? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
58.3% |
| Item
24: Was loading condition on the scenario sufficiently and appropriately
considered in the simulation? (e.g. muscle force, boundary force, inertia
force) |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0% |
| Item
25: Was the loading condition acquired from the same model subject? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
58.3% |
| Item
26: Were the software (e.g. Abaqus, Ansys), type of analysis (e.g. quasi-static,
dynamic), AND solver (e.g. standard, explicit) clearly described? (solver
can be regarded as clearly described if it is obvious to the type of analysis) |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Model
Verification and Validation |
| Item
27: Were the methods of mesh convergence or other verification tests conducted
and clearly described? |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
58.3% |
| Item
28: Were the model verification conducted and results presented clearly;
and that the model was justified acceptable? |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
58.3% |
| Item
29: Were direct model validation (with experiment) conducted and described
clearly? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
83.3% |
| Item
30: Were the model validation conducted and results presented clearly; and
that the model was justified acceptable? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Item
31: Were the model prediction or validation findings compared to relevant
studies? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Model
Assumption and Validity |
| Item
32: Were the model assumptions or simplifications on model reconstruction/configuration
AND material properties discussed? |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
83.3% |
| Item
33: Were the model assumptions or simplifications on the boundary and loading
conditions discussed? |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
83.3% |
| Item
34: Were the limitations of model validation discussed? (e.g. differences
in case scenario; differences between validation metric and primary outcome) |
| Score |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
50.0% |
| Item
35: Was the limitation on external validity, single-subject, and subject-specific
design discussed? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
50.0% |
| Item
36: Were there any attempts to improve or discuss internal validity (such
as mesh convergence test), uncertainty and variability in the study? |
| Score |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0% |
| Item
37: Was there any discussion, highlights or content on the implications
or translation potential of the research findings? |
| Score |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
| Sum |
25 |
18 |
25 |
23 |
28 |
30 |
30 |
20 |
31 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
/ |
| % |
71.4% |
51.4% |
71.4% |
65.7% |
80.0% |
85.7% |
85.7% |
57.1% |
88.6% |
85.7% |
85.7% |
85.7% |
/ |