Table 4.

Summary of methodological quality based on the PEDro classification scale^c

Study author (year) [reference]	Overalla	Eligibility criteriab	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Chen (2014) [51]	7/10d		X	X	X				X	X	X	X
Geng (2017) [90]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Guan (2015) [80]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Huang (2017) [88]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Jiang (2016) [81]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Khosrawi (2017) [48]	8/10	X	X		X	X		X	X	X	X	X
Liu (2016) [82]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Taunton (2003) [83]	5/10d	X	X		X	X			X		X
Thijs (2017) [84]	9/10	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
Vetrano (2013) [85]	7/10	X	X		X			X	X	X	X	X
Wang (2014) [86]	8/10	X	X	X	X			X	X	X	X	X
Weckström (2016) [52]	6/10	X	X	X	X				X		X	X
Wu (2009) [91]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Wu (2016) [89]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Yang (2007) [16]	5/10	X	X		X				X		X	X
Zhang (2016) [92]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Zhang (2017) [17]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Zhou (2015) [53]	6/10	X	X		X				X	X	X	X
Zwerver (2011) [87]	9/10	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X

PEDro Physiotherapy Evidence Database

^aPoints of methodological quality are denoted as “X” for fulfilled criteria

^bNot used to calculate the total score

^cPEDro classification scale: 1 = random allocation, 2 = concealed allocation, 3 = similarity at the baseline, 4 = subject blinding, 5 = therapist blinding, 6 = assessor blinding, 7 = more than 85% follow-up for at least one key outcome, 8 = intention-to-treat analysis, 9 = between-group statistical comparison for at least one key outcome, 10 = point and variability measures for at least one key outcome. Methodological quality: high, ≥7 points; medium, 4–6 points; low, ≤3 points

^dScore was determined by a third assessor