Table 2.
Summary of methodological quality based on PEDro scale.
| Studies included | PEDro scale items | PEDro score | Methodological quality | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | (0–10) | ||
| Quirk et al.16 | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | Good |
| Adedoyin et al.17 | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 6 | Good |
| Adedoyin et al.18 | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 6 | Good |
| Defrin et al.19 | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | 4 | Fair |
| Itoh et al.20 | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | 4 | Fair |
| Dyson21 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 7 | Good |
| Atamaz et al.22 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | Good |
| Gundog et al.23 | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 7 | Good |
| de Paula Gomes et al.24 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | Excellent |
| Alqualo-Costa et al.25 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | Excellent |
Items: 1-Random allocation; 2-Concealed allocation; 3-Baseline comparability; 4-Blinded participants; 5-Blinded therapists; 6-Blinded assessors; 7-Adequate follow-up; 8-Intention-to-treat analysis; 9-Between-group comparisons; 10-Point estimates and variability.
Methodological quality: Excellent, 9–10 points; Good, 6–8 points; Fair, 4–5points; Poor, 0–3 points;
Yes (Y), 1 point; No (N), 0 point.