Table 3.

APEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale evaluation of studies in the review

	Waldorff et al 200314	Downs et al 200616	Rondeau et al 200819	Chodosh et al 200618	Wenger etal 200917	Vollmar et al 201020	Perry et al 200813	Callahan et al 200626	Vickrey et al 200624	Fortinsky et al 200927	Clarke et al 200425
Study Design	Controlled before and after study	Cluster randomised triala	Cluster RCT	Cluster RCT	Controlled trial	Cluster RCT	RCT	RCT	Cluster RCT	Cluster RCT	RCT
Eligibility criteria were specified	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Random allocation to intervention	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Allocation concealed	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Intervention groups similar at baseline	Nob	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Nod	Yes	Yes	Yes	Noc	Yes
Blinding of all participants	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Blinding of all therapists	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes
Blinding of all assessors	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Partial	No
Measures of at least 1 outcome obtained from >85% of participants	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Intention to treat analysis	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No
Results of between interventions group statistical comparisons are reported for at least 1 outcome	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least 1 key outcome	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
TOTAL (maximum points = 11)	4	6	5	8	5	5	6	9	8	7	8

^aUnblended, cluster randomised, before and after controlled study

^bExcept all from geographically similar areas.

^cGroups of patients similar, but some statistically significant differences in caregiver group for example, age and male sex

^dGroups of patients similar, but there were more single handed GPs in the ‘classical learning’ group than the ‘blended learning’ group, and significance for this difference has not been calculated.