Table 2.
Methodological quality of included studies based on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale
| Study | Point estimates & variability | Between group comparison | Intention to treat | Adequate follow-up | Blind assessors | Blind therapists | Blind subjects | Baseline comparability | Concealed allocation | Random allocation | Eligibility criteria* | Total score | Methodological quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benninger et al., 2010 [45] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Beretta et al., 2020 [46] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Bueno et al., 2019 [47] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y | 8 | Good |
| Chang et al., 2017 [61] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y | 8 | Good |
| Conceição et al., 2021 [63] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 6 | Good |
| Costa-Ribeiro et al., 2017 [55] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y | 9 | Excellent |
| Criminger et al., 2018 [42] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 6 | Good |
| Dagan et al., 2018 [43] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 8 | Good |
| Fernández-Lago et al., 2017 [57] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 5 | Fair |
| Kaski et al., 2014 [41] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Lattari et al., 2017 [48] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Lee et al., 2021 [20] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 6 | Good |
| Manenti et al., 2014 [49] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Manenti et al., 2016 [58] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 8 | Good |
| Manor et al., 2021 [50] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y | 9 | Excellent |
| Mishra et al., 2021 [51] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 8 | Good |
| Mishra et al., 2022 [64] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Na et al., 2022 [56] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Papen et al., 2014 [62] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 5 | Fair |
| Schabrun et al., 2016 [59] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y | 9 | Excellent |
| Silva et al., 2018 [16] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Swank et al., 2016 [53] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 6 | Good |
| Valentino et al., 2014 [54] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 6 | Good |
| Wong et al., 2022 [44] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
| Yotnuengnit et al., 2018 [60] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Y | 7 | Good |
Yes (Y) = 1 point, No (N) = 0 point; * = not included in total score; < 4 = Poor, 4–5 = Fair, 6–8 = Good, 9–10 = Excellent