Table 2. Summary of methodological quality: Assessment Tool of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group (20).

Author, year (reference)	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L
Seitz 1994 (4)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	2
Wittenberg 1998 (7)	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	1	2	2	2
Fink 2001 (29)	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	2	2	2	2
Myklebust 2003 (23)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	2	2
Fithian 2005 (22)	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	2
Kessler 2008 (27)	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	2	2
Moksnes 2009 (24)	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	1	2	2	1
Meuffels & van Yperen 2009, 2018 (3, 6)	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	2	2	2	2
Streich 2011 (28)	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	2	2	2	2	2
Grindem 2012 (25)	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	2
Frobell 2013, 2010 (14, 15)	1	2	0	2	0	0	1	2	1	2	2	2
Tsoukas 2016 (21)	1	0	0	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	2	2
Markström 2017 (26)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	2
Mean	0.15	0.15	0.23	1.38	0.00	0.00	0.69	1.46	1.77	2	2	1.92

A Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation?

B Were the outcomes of participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention to treat)?

C Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status?

D Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry?

E Were the subjects blind to assignment status after allocation?

F Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status?

G Were care programs, other than the trial options, identical?

H Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?

I Were the interventions clearly defined?

J Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?

K Were diagnostic tests used in outcome assessment clinically useful?

L Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration?