TABLE 3.

Qualitative synthesis of included studies using PEDro scale for the quality of randomised controlled trials

First author [ref.]	Eligibility criteria	Random allocation	Concealed allocation	Baseline similarity	Blinding (subject)	Blinding (therapist)	Blinding (assessor)	Measure >85%	ITT	Group comparison	Point measure	Quality score
Altenburg [14]	*	*	*	*				*	*	*	*	8
Arbillaga-Etxarri [20]	*	*	*	*	*	*			*	*	*	9
Bender [21]	*	*		*				*	*	*	*	7
De Blok [22]	*	*		*		*		*	*	*	*	8
Cruz [15]	*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	10
Demeyer [13]	*	*	*	*			*	*	*	*	*	9
Holland [23]	*	*	*	*			*	*	*	*	*	9
Horrnix [24]	*	*		*				*	*	*	*	7
Hospes [25]	*	*		*				*	*	*	*	7
Kawagoshi [26]	*	*		*			*	*	*	*	*	8
Mendoza [27]	*	*		*			*	*	*	*	*	8
Moy [28]	*	*	*	*				*	*	*	*	8
Nolan [29]	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*	10
Tabak [30]	*	*	*	*				*	*	*	*	8
Varas [31]	*	*		*	*			*	*	*	*	8
Vorrnik [32]	*	*	*	*			*	*	*	*	*	9
Wan [33]	*	*	*	*			*	*	*	*	*	9

ITT: intention to treat. *: yes, score=1. The higher the given score, the better the quality. Cut-off points of the scale were: excellent (9–10), good (6–8), fair (4–5) and poor (3).