Skip to main content
. 2025 Mar 13;26:250. doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-08372-x

Table 3.

The PEDro scores of included studies

Author Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
PEDro Score
Quality
Fernández-de-las-Peñas 2016 Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 Good
Mohamadi 2017 Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y 6 Good
Ekici 2021 Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N 6 Good
Ammara 2023 Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y N 5 Fair
Sadeghnia 2023 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 Good
Sadeghnia 2023 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 Good
Bukhari 2020 Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y N 5 Fair
Yasin 2019 Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y N 4 Fair
Basu 2017 Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N 3 poor
Rizwana 2024 Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y N 4 Fair
Trampas 2010 Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 7 Good
Doley 2013 Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y N 4 poor

Items: (1) Eligibility criteria were specified, (2) Subjects were randomly allocated to groups (in a crossover study, subjects were randomly allocated an order in which treatments were received), (3) Allocation was concealed (4) The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators, (5) There was blinding of all subjects, (6) There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy, (7) There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome, (8) Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from > 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups, (9) All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome were analyzed by intention to treat, (10) The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome, 11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome