Table 2.

Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of the quality of evidence^a.

Outcomes	Risk of biasb	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Large effect	Plausible confounding	Dose response gradient	GRADE quality	Effect size (95% CI)
Gait speed	0	0	0	−1c	0	0	0	0	Moderate	0.19 (−0.00 to 0.38)
Gait speed (high-quality studies)	0	0	0	−1c	0	0	0	0	Moderate	0.12 (−0.05 to 0.30)
Dual-task gait speed	0	0	0	−1c	0	0	0	0	Moderate	0.26 (0.03 to 0.49)
Dual-task gait speed (high-quality studies)	0	0	0	−1c	0	0	0	0	Moderate	0.39 (0.04 to 0.75)
Functional mobility	0	–1d	0	−1c	0	0	0	0	Low	0.29 (−0.60 to 1.18)
Balance scale	−1e	0	0	−2b	0	0	0	0	Very low	0.18 (−0.34 to 0.69)

^a0 indicates that no serious limitations were identified in that domain; therefore, no downgrading was applied. Negative values (−1 or −2) indicate downgrading of the quality of evidence due to identified limitations (eg, imprecision or inconsistency).

^bThe P value of the Egger regression asymmetry test is less than 0.1.

^cThe number of participants included in the primary meta-analysis was <400, and the 95% CI spanned the appreciable harm or benefit thresholds.

^dHeterogeneity I² larger than 50% in the meta-analysis.

^eMore than 50% of the participants included in the primary analysis from trials with a Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of <6.