. 2019 Jun 4;11:100180. doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2019.100180

Table 1.

The PEDro scale.

Authors and Date	1	4	8	10	11	Total	Risk of bias
Cordero et al. (2017)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Pierce and Pritchard (2016)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Labonté et al. (2014)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Van Liempt et al. (2013)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Wahbeh and Oken (2013)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Eckart et al. (2009)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Metzger et al. (2008)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
DE Kloet et al. (2007)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Gill et al. (2008)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)
Bremner et al. (2007)	X	X	X	X	X	5/11	2/6 (high)

Criteria: 1. eligibility criteria were specified; 2. subjects were randomly allocated to groups (in a crossover study, subjects were randomly allocated an order in which treatments were received); 3. allocation was concealed; 4. the 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 analysed 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 (Verhagen et al., 1998).

Note: X: the study met the specified criterion; 0: the study did not meet the specified criterion.