Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 30;14:927315. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.927315

Table 2.

Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores of the 15 included studies.

References Scores Methodological quality PEDro item number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Schmitz-Hübsch et al. (2006) 8 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Hackney and Earhart (2008) 6 Good 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Li et al. (2012) 8 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Amano et al. (2013) 6 Good 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Choi et al. (2013) 6 Good 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Gao et al. (2014) 7 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Zhang et al. (2015) 8 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Xiao and Zhuang (2016) 7 Good 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Xiao et al. (2016) 5 Fair 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Liu et al. (2016) 4 Fair 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Lee et al. (2018) 7 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
Kurt et al. (2018) 6 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Vergara-Diaz et al. (2018) 6 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Wan et al. (2021) 5 Fair 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Li et al. (2022) 7 Good 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1

Studies were classified as having excellent (9–10), good (6–8), fair (4–5), or poor (< 4). 0: does not meet the criteria; 1: meets the criteria. Criteria (without eligibility criteria) were used to calculate the total PEDro score; Item 1 = Eligibility criteria; Item 2 = Random sequence; Item 3 = Allocation concealment; Item 4 = Similar at baseline; Item 5 = Subjects blinded; Item 6 = Therapists blinded; Item 7 = Assessors blinded; Item 8 = < 15% dropouts; Item 9 = Intention-to-treat analysis; Item 10 = Between-group comparisons; Item 11 = Point measures and variability data.