Table 4.

Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale for Assessing Quality: Risk of Bias in Studies

	Hossain et al.6	Houlihan et al.32	Migliorini et al.22	Arora et al.23	Kowalczewski et al.24	Hearn and Finlay25	Houlihan et al.26
1. Eligibility criteria were specified	p.782, Methods	Table 1	p.695, Methods	p.1072, Participants	p.413, Participants	p.751, Participants	p.1068, Participants
2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups	p.782, Methods	p.716, Participants	p.696, Methods	p.1072, Intervention	p.413, Participants	p.752, Procedure	p.1068, Trial design
3. Allocation was concealed	p.782, Methods	N	p.695, Methods	p.3, Figure 1{Arora&Harve}	N	N	N
4. Groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators	Table 1	Table 3	Table 1	Table 1	Table 1	Table 2	Table 2
5. There was blinding of all subjects	p.782, Methods	Abstract	p.696, Methods	N	p.413, Design	p.752, Procedure	p.1068, Trial design
6. There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy	N	N	N	N	p.415, Primary outcome	N	N
7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome	p.783, Methods	N	N	p.3, Assignment	p.415, Primary outcome	p.752, Procedure	N
8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from >85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups	Table 2	Table 4, Figures 2a, 2b	N	Tables 3, 4	p.413, Table 2 and Participants	N {p.755, Compliance}	p.1071, Results
9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome were analyzed by “intention to treat”	Table 2, Figure 1	p.717, Stats analysis	p.697, Analyses	Tables 3, 4	Table 2	p.754, Results	p.1071, Engagement
10. Results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome	N	p.717, Results	Table 2	Table 5	p.417, Comparison	Table 3	Table 4
11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome	N	Figures 2a, 2b	Tables 3, 4	Table 5	p.417, Effect size	p.756, Effects	Table 4
Total	8/11	8/11	8/11	9/11	10/11	8/11	8/11
Information in each cell indicates the corresponding “page number” or “section” (Abstract, Methods, Results, Participants, Design, Statistics analysis, Outcomes, Comparison, Effect size, Tables, Figures, etc.) under which each of the 11 areas of quality assessment was reported by respective authors in the original article.
N, none reported.

	Kryger et al.11	Coulter et al.27	Worobey et al.28	Rimmer et al.29	Dorstyn et al.30	Shen et al.31
1. Eligibility criteria were specified	p.3, Recruitment	p.384, Methods	p.10, Participants	p.1085, Participants	p.222, Eligibility	p.2768, Subjects
2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups	p.3, Design	p.384, Methods	p.10, Participants	p.1086, Recruitment	p.223, Procedure	p.2768, Subjects
3. Allocation was concealed	N	N	p.10, Participants	N	p.223, Procedure	N
4. Groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators	Table 1	Table 1	Table 1	Table 2	Table 1	Table 1
5. There was blinding of all subjects	N	N	N	N	N	N
6. There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy	p.3, Design	N	N	N	N	N
7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome	p.3, Design	N	N	p.1087, Measures	N	N
8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups	p.6, Results, Figure 2	p.384, Results	p.13, TAI, Table 1	N	N	N
9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome were analyzed by “intention to treat”	Table 3	Table 2	Table 1	p.1088, Stats analysis	p.225, Preliminary effects	Table 5
10. Results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome	Figures 3, 4	Table 2	p.13, Regression, Tables 2, 3	Table 3	Table 2	Table 3
11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome	p.10, Findings	Table 2	Tables 2, 3	Table 4	p.225, Prelim effects	Table 5
Total	9/11	7/11	8/11	7/11	7/11	6/11

Information in each cell indicates the page number or section (Abstract, Methods, Results, Participants, Design, Statistics analysis, Outcomes, Comparison, Effect size, Tables, Figures, etc.) under which each of the 11 areas of quality assessment was reported by the study authors.

TAI, transfer assessment instrument.