Table 3.

PEDro ratings of all included studies

Study	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	Ratings	Quality
Atashak and Jafari [45]	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Bassit et al. [46]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Excellent
Bassit et al. [47]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Excellent
Basta et al. [48]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	8/16	Fair
Boychuk et al. [49]	1	2	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	14/16	Good
Brose et al. [50]	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10/16	Fair
Cooke et al. [26]	1	2	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	14/16	Good
Fernandez-Landa et al. [30]	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Good
Hayward et al. [33]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	11/16	Good
Kaviani et al. [31]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Machado et al. [51]	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
McKinnon et al. [34]	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Good
Mirzaei et al. [52]	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Percario et al. [32]	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Excellent
Rahimi [53]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Rawson et al. [35]	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Rawson et al. [37]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Good
Santana et al. [54]	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Santi et al. [55]	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Good
Santos et al. [56]	1	2	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	15/16	Excellent
Taylor et al. [36]	1	2	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	12/16	Good
Veggiv [27]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	11/16	Good
Wang et al. [28]	1	2	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	13/16	Good