Table 2.

Methodological evaluation of the included RCTs (PEDro scale [51])

Author, year	Random allocation	Concealed allocation	Groups similar at baseline	Participant blinding	Therapist blinding	Assessor blinding	Adequate follow-up < 15% missing	Intention- to- treat analysis	Between-group differences	Point estimate and variability	Total (0–10)
Chan et al. 2013 [70]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5–fair
Chan et al. 2014 [69]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6–high
Clark et al. 2017 [63]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6–high
Ho et al. 2012 [71]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	6–high
Kos et al. 2015 [64]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	6–high
Meeus et al. 2010 [65]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	7–high
Moss-Morris et al. 2005 [74]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8–high
Nùñez et al. 2011 [68]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	7–high
Oka et al. 2014 [72]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	5–fair
Pinxsterhuis et al. 2017 [67]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6–high
Powell et al. 2001 [60]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7–high
Sutcliffe et al. 2010 [62]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	7–high
Taylor et al. 2004 [75]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8–high
Thomas et al. 2008 [61]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	5–fair
Vos-Vromans et al. 2016 [66]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7–high
Wallman et al. 2004 [73]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	5–fair
Wearden et al. 2010 [59]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7–high
White et al. 2011 [58]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	6–high

PEDro score: fair 4–5, high 6–10