Skip to main content
. 2023 Sep 1;22(3):465–475. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2023.465

Table 2.

PEDro scale.

Study Random allocation Concealed allocation Groups similar at baseline Assessor blinding Subject blinding Therapist blinding Less than 15% dropouts Intention-to-treat analysis Between-group statistical comparisons Point estimates and variability Eligibility criteria specified * Total
Akagi (2014) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Longo (2021) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Konrad (2014) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Konrad (2017) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5
Konrad (2019) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
LaRoche (2006) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Gajdosik (2007) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Brusco (2019) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
Marshall (2011) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Oba (2021) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Kudo (2002) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Ryan (2008) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Guissard (2004) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
Nakao (2021) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
Hatano (2022) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Palmer (2019) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Rodrigues (2017) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

PEDro, Physiotherapy evidence database; 1, one point scored; 0, no points scored;

* Criteria of random allocation was not counted for the total score.