Table 2.
Completed PEDro quality appraisal.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arndt et al.16 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 |
| Cuff & Pupello17 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | 4 |
| Duzgun et al.18 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 |
| Hayes et al.25 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 |
| Keener et al.19 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 |
| Kim et al.20 | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 |
| Klintberg et al.8 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 6 |
| Koh et al.21 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 |
| Lastayo et al.22 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 |
| Lee et al.23 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 |
| Raab et al.24 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | 5 |
| Roddey et al.33 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 4 |
1, Eligibility criteria were specified. 2, Subjects were randomly allocated to groups. 3, Allocation was concealed. 4, 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 more than 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 was 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). ✓ = criteria met; ✗ = criteria not met.