Table 3.
Methodological quality of the included studies assessed with the PEDro scale
| Items | Clifford et al 12 | Clifford et al 13 | Montenegro et al 37 | Clifford et al 11 | Clifford et al 15 | Carriker et al 8 | Clifford et al 14 | Daab et al 16 | Kozłowska et al 30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Eligibility criteria were specified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups (in a crossover study, subjects were randomly allocated an order in which treatments were received) | − | + | + | − | + | − | − | + | − |
| 3. Allocation was concealed | − | − | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| 4. The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 5. There was blinding of all subjects | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − |
| 6. There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − |
| 7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least 1 key outcome | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| 8. Measures of at least 1 key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 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 1 key outcome was analyzed by “intention to treat” | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 10. The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least 1 key outcome | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least 1 key outcome | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Total score | 7 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 5 |