Table 2.

Summary of included reviews investigating ‘supervised rehabilitation frequency’

Author (year)	Review type	Dates	Methodological quality	No. included original studies	Conclusion
Anderson et al. (2016) [13]	Systematic	2004-14	Not assessed	4	Inconclusive
Andersson et al. (2009) [22]	Systematic	1995-2009	Severely limited by methodology quality	7	Inconclusive
Coppola and Collins (2009) [23]	Systematic	1980-2007	Moderate quality	3	Inconclusive
Kruse et al. (2012) [24]	Systematic	2006-10	Large biases in studies	6	Equally effective
Lobb et al. (2012) [29]	Non-systematic	Until 2011	Moderate evidence	2	Equally effective
Papalia et al. (2013) [25]	Systematic	Until 2013	Good quality	10	Equally effective
Risberg et al. (2004) [26]	Systematic	Until 2003	Significant limitations across studies	3	Equally effective
Trees et al. (2005) [27]	Systematic	Until 2005	Poor	3	Equally effective
Wright et al. (2008) [28]	Systematic	Until 2005	Biases present	4	Equally effective

Methodological quality refers to the outcome of the quality appraisal undertaken by the review not the authors of this study. The conclusion stated is that of the included review in reference to the comparison of home versus clinic-based rehabilitation. The number of original studies is only those included in each review for the evaluation of home versus supervised rehabilitation