Skip to main content
. 2021 May 24;12(2):236–245. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2021.05.005

Table 3.

Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale ratingsa

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Total (from a possible maximal of 10)
Chaouachi et al.(2014)68 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Cornu et al. (1997)5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
Fouré et al. (2009)27 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Fouré et al. (2010)26 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
García-Pinillos et al. (2020)64 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Hirayama et al. (2017)69 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5
Houghton et al. (2013)70 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3
Jeffreys et al. (2019)58 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Laurent et al. (2020)65 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Lloyd et al. (2012)71 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
Spurrs et al. (2003)15 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Wu et al. (2010)25 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6

Notes: Here is a brief explanation: Item 1, eligibility criteria were specified; Item 2, subjects were randomly allocated to groups; Item 3, allocation was concealed; Item 4, the groups were similar at baseline; Item 5, there was blinding of all subjects; Item 6, there was blinding of all therapists; Item 7, there was blinding of all assessors; Item 8, measures of at least 1 key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups; Item 9, all subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated, or data for at least 1 key outcome were analysed by “intention to treat”; Item 10, the results of between-group statistical comparisons were reported for at least 1 key outcome; Item 11, the study provided both point measures and measures of variability for at least 1 key outcome.

a

A detailed explanation of each PEDro scale item can be accessed at https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale (Access for this review: March 11, 2020.)