Table 2.
Physiotherapy evidence database scale (PEDro).
| 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | Total Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lau et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Racilet al.(2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Hay et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Racilet al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| McNarry et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Lambrick et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Notes: 0 = item was not satisfied; 1 = item was satisfied. Item 1: eligibility criteria were specified; Item 2: subjects were randomly allocated to groups; Item 3: allocation was concealed; Item 4: the groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators; Item 5: there was blinding of all subjects; Item 6: there was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy; Item 7: there was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome; Item 8: measurements of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups; Item 9: all subjects for whom outcome measurements were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated, or where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome were analyzed by “intention to treat”; Item 10: the results of between groups statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome; Item 11: the study provides bothpoint measurements and measurements of variability for at least one key outcome.