Table 7.
Study quality ratings.
| PEDro scale | Barcellona et al. (45) | Chrzan et al. (37) | Fukuda et al. (43) | Heijne and Werner (44) | Kang et al. (38) | Perry et al. (39) | Perry et al. (41) | Tagesson et al. (42) | Uçar et al. (40) | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility criteria specified | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 100% |
| Random allocation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 100% |
| Concealed allocation | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | 44.4% |
| Baseline comparability | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 100% |
| Participant blinding | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0% |
| Therapist blinding | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | 0% |
| Assessor blinding | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | 55.5% |
| Adequate follow-up | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | 44.4% |
| Intention-to-treat analysis | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | 11.1% |
| Between-group comparisons | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 100% |
| Point estimates variability | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 100% |
| Total PEDro score (Risk of bias) |
5/10 (High risk) |
5/10 (High risk) |
8/10 (Low risk) |
6/10 (High risk) |
4/10 (High risk) |
5/10 (High risk) |
5/10 (High risk) |
6/10 (High risk) |
6/10 (High risk) |