Table 2.
Evaluation of the quality of research in Pedro scale included only RCT studies [43].
| Study | EC * | RA | CA | BC | BS | BT | BA | AF | ITA | BGC | PEaV | TS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bø, 2011 [44] | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | 5 |
| Stafne, 2012 [45] | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | + | + | + | + | 7 |
| Johannessen, 2017 [46] | + | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | + | + | + | 5 |
| Ilnyckyj, 2005 [47] | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | 2 |
| Sjödahl, 2015 [48] | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | + | - | + | + | 6 |
| Peirce, 2013 [49] | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | + | - | + | - | 4 |
| Davis, 2004 [50] | + | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | 4 |
| Ghahramani, 2016 [51] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 10 |
| Sigurdardottir, 2020 [52] | + | + | - | + | - | - | + | + | - | + | + | 6 |
| Naimy, 2007 [53] | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | 3 |
| Mahony, 2004 [54] | + | + | + | + | - | - | + | + | - | + | + | 7 |
| Healy, 2006 [55] | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | 3 |
| Cohen-Zubary, 2015 [56] | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | + | + | + | 6 |
| Ugwu, 2018 [57] | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | + | - | + | + | 6 |
* Eligibility criteria it is not included in the total score; EC, Eligibility criteria; RA, Random allocation; CA, Concealed allocation; BC, Baseline comparability; BS, Blind subjects; BT, Blind therapists; BA, Blind assessors; AF, Adequate follow-up; ITA, Intention-to-treat analysis; BGC, Between-group comparisons; PeaV, Point estimates and variability; TS, Total score (1 point: “+”; 0 point: “-”).