. 2011 Jun 2;12:123. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-123

Table 1.

Summary of Quality assessment scores

	Silva et al., 2008 [2]	Foley et al., 2003 [1]	Lund et al., 2008 [27]	Fransen et al., 2007 [7]	Wyatt et al., 2001 [30]	Suomi & Collier,2003 [22]	Eversden et al., 2007 [23]	Gill et al., 2009 [25]	Hall et al., 1996 [21]	Smith et al., 1998 [31]
1. eligibility criteria	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

2. random allocation	1 drawing of lots	1 computer generated	1 opaque envelopes	1 computer generated	1	1 randomly assigned	1 flipping virtual coin	1 random numbers table	1 random numbers table	1 random allocation

3. allocation concealed	1 likely	1 sealed opaque envelopes,	1 baseline measures prior	1 after baseline assessment	0 not described	0 unlikely	1 sealed opaque envelopes	1 sealed envelopes	1 independent coordinator	1 independent allocator

4. baseline similarity	1 VAS (pain), WOMAC	1 Walk speed, ASE (pain)	1 VAS (pain), KOOS ADLs	1 WOMAC pain & function	0⁽¹⁾no outcomes comparable	1 ADLs & Pain comparable	1 VAS (pain), EQ-SD	1 WOMAC pain & function	1 Knee ROM, AIMS2	1 Morning stiffness, HAQ

5. patient blinding	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

6. therapist blinding	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

7. assessor blinding	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1

8. adequate follow-up	0 81% land	0⁽¹⁾80% aquatic, 74% land	0⁽¹⁾96% aquatic, 80% land	1 93% aquatic, 89% Tai chi	1 91% overall	1 91% patients each group	0 81% aquatic, 69% land	1 86% land 89% aquatic	1 94% overall	0 92% aquatic, 75% land

9. ITT analysis	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0

10. between group comparisons reported	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0 pre/post test	1

11. post intervention point & variability measures	1 means & SDs	1 medians & IQR	1 means & SDs	1 means & SDs	1 mean & SDs	1 means & SDs	1 medians & IQR	1 means & SDs	1 means & SDs	1 means & SDs

TOTAL	7/10*	7/10⁽⁸⁾	7/10⁽⁸⁾	8/10*	5/10⁽⁶⁾	5/10*	7/10*	7/10*	6/10*	6/10*

Key:

* accessed by PEDro with same score obtained

✓ yes (not scored)

^(x)PEDro assessment by PEDro reviewers differs and is x

1 yes (scored)

0 no