TABLE 1.
Study | Level of Evidence | PEDro Scale Itemsb
|
Total Score | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||
Astur et al1 | 1b | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Csintalan et al11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Deie et al12 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Ellera Gomes15 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
Feller et al17 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Fink et al18 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
Goyal22 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Kang et al27 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Matthews and Schranz34 | 1b | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Mulliez et al40 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Panagopoulos et al45 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Panni et al46 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Wagner et al71 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Witonski et al73 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale is optimal for evaluating randomized controlled trials; therefore, it should be interpreted with caution in the studies included here, as they are nonrandomized. PEDro criterion 1 is not counted toward the total score according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database guidelines.
Scale items: 1 = eligibility criteria specified; 2 = random allocation of participants; 3 = allocation concealed; 4 = similar groups at baseline; 5 = blinding of participants; 6 = blinding of intervention providers; 7 = blinding of outcome assessors; 8 = outcomes obtained from 85% of participants; 9 = use of intent-to-treat analysis if protocol violated; 10 = between-group statistical comparison; and 11 = point measures and measures of variability. “1” indicates a “yes” score, and “0” indicates a “no” score.