Table 2.

PEDro quality assessment

	Kaya et al.[16]	Land et al[17].	Silva et al[19].	Kourdouni et al[18].	Fernandez-Comero et al[20]	Riley et al[21].	Park et al[22].	Wright et al[29].	Haider et al[23].	Haik et al[24].	Bergman et al[25]	Vinuesa-Montoya et al[28]	Grimes et al[26].	Mintken et al[27].
PEDro Item
Eligibility criteria were specified	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Random allocation of subjects	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Allocation concealment	-	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	-	-	+	-	+	+
Similar groups at baseline	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Subjects blinded	-	+	+	+	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	+	+	+
Therapists administering treatment blinded	-	+	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	+	-	-
Assessors blinded	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	-	+
One key outcome obtained from 85% of subjects initially allocated to groups	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
‘Intention to treat’ used for analysis of one key outcome	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Between-group statistics for one key outcome reported	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Point measures and measures of variability for one key outcome	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
SCORE	6	10	8	9	7	8	8	7	6	8	8	9	8	9
Internal Validity	F	E	G	E	G	E	E	G	G	E	G	E	E	E