Table 2.
Methodolical quality assessment.
| PEDro Criteria | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | TOTAL | |
|
|
||||||||||||
| Evgeniadis et al. 2008 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Fung et al. 2012 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Harmer et al. 2009 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Johnson et al. 2010 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Kauppila et al. 2010 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Kramer et al. 2003 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Levine et al. 2013 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Liao et al. 2013 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Liebs et al. 2012 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Madsen et al. 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Mockford et al. 2008 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Moffet et al. 2004 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Petterson et al. 2009 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Piva et al. 2010 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Rajan et al. 2004 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Russel et al. 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Tousignant et al. 2011 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Valtonen et al. 2010 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Valtonen et al. 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
NOTE: PEDro criteria: 1. Eligibility criteria were specified. 2. Random allocation. 3. Concealed allocation. 4. Baseline similarity between groups. 5. Subject blinding. 6. Therapist blinding. 7. Assessor blinding. 8. Follow-up >85%. 9. Intention-to-treat analysis. 10. Between-group statistical comparisons. 11. Point measures and measures of variability reported. Item scoring: 1 = present, 0 = absent.