2.8. Synthesis of results

The results were presented descriptively in tables and supplemented with appropriate graphical presentations. When the number of observations within each outcome measure was higher than 18, the most frequent results were presented. Studies were grouped by the type of muscle function assessment method(s) they included, allowing identification and mapping of the range of muscle function assessment methods currently applied in dogs. Further, the studies were grouped by the journals they were published in, by the countries and by the context of the studies (specific diseases or basic research). Information on the clinical relevance and clinical applicability of the identified methods was obtained by two clinical experts (JM and AV) who were asked to grade the level of clinical relevance of the methods: Grading 1–4 (poor, fair, good, excellent) for the potential quality of information provided to the clinician on muscle function in dogs with CCLD. Correspondingly, two experts in biomechanics (TA and MKZ) were asked to grade the level of applicability (method compliance) of the methods, including cost, training of staff, space requirements, time requirements etc. Method applicability was also graded from 1 to 4 (poor, fair, good, excellent). The clinical value gradings were then plotted against the method applicability gradings to identify methods with high value/high applicability, high clinical value/low applicability etc. During the method grading, the experts did not know the frequency of the identified methods applied in the included studies. The documents that the experts were given before grading can be seen online in Appendix III (https://osf.io/gf64p).