Skip to main content
. 2025 Feb 19;27:e66802. doi: 10.2196/66802

Table 2.

Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale score for randomized clinical trials included in the review.

Studies Total score Methodological quality Number of items of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale
1a 2b 3c 4d 5e 6f 7g 8h 9i 10j 11k
Ikbali Afsar et al [14] 5 Fair N/Al m N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alves et al [10] 5 Fair N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Brunner et al [40] 7 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A
Abd El-Kafy et al [41] 6 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ersoy and Iyigun [51] 4 Poor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gueye et al [42] 6 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hsu et al [11] 7 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A
Junior et al [52] 5 Fair N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X
Kiper et al [43] 6 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kiper et al [44] 8 Good N/A N/A N/A
Rong et al [45] 8 Good N/A N/A N/A
Schuster-Amft et al [16] 8 Good N/A N/A N/A
Sin and Lee [46] 7 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A
Taveggia et al [47] 7 Good N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yao et al [48] 8 Good N/A N/A N/A
Zheng et al [49] 8 Good N/A N/A N/A

aItem 1: Specified eligibility criteria.

bItem 2: Random allocation.

cItem 3: Concealed allocation.

dItem 4:Baseline comparability.

eItem 5: Participants were blinded.

fItem 6: Therapists were blinded.

gItem 7: Assessors were blinded.

hItem 8: Adequate follow-up.

iItem 9: Intention-to-treat analysis.

jItem 10: Between-group comparisons.

kItem 11: Point estimates and variability.

lN/A: not applicable.

mThe ‘✓’ symbol indicates that the item where it is found has been punctuated.