Table 2.

Methodological quality of the included studies (PEDro analysis).

Study	Score	Methodological Quality	PEDro Item Number
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Chang, 2015 [36]	5	Fair	✔	✔		✔				✔		✔	✔
de Oliveira Silva, 2019 [37]	7	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
de Souto Barreto, 2017 [38]	6	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔				✔		✔	✔
Fonte, 2019 [39]	8	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Hoffmann, 2016 [40]	8	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Holthoff, 2015 [41]	5	Fair	✔	✔		✔				✔		✔	✔
Kemoun, 2010 [42]	6	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔				✔		✔	✔
Liu, 2017 [43]	6	Good	✔	✔		✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
Mu, 2016 [44]	7	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
Pedroso, 2018 [45]	5	Fair	✔	✔		✔				✔		✔	✔
Venturelli, 2011 [46]	5	Fair	✔	✔		✔				✔		✔	✔
Venturelli, 2016 [47]	6	Good	✔	✔		✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
Vreugdenhil, 2012 [48]	6	Good	✔	✔		✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
Wang, W 2014 [49]	7	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
Wang, Y 2014 [50]	7	Good	✔	✔	✔	✔				✔	✔	✔	✔
Yang, 2015 [51]	6	Good	✔	✔		✔				✔	✔	✔	✔

Note: PEDro, Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale; Studies were classified as having excellent (9–10), good (6–8), fair (4–5), or poor (<4). Scale of item score: ✔, present. The PEDro scale involves (1) eligibility criteria; (2) random allocation; (3) concealed allocation; (4) similarity at baseline on key measures; (5) participant blinding; (6) instructor blinding; (7) assessor blinding; (8) more than 85% retention rate of at least one outcome; (9) intention-to-treat analysis; (10) between-group statistical comparison for at least one outcome; (11) point estimates and measures of variability provided for at least one outcome.