Table 3.
– Quality assessment of the included studies using the PEDro scale.
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matsumoto-Miyazaki, 2018 | ✓ | x | x | x | x | x | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | 4 | Fair |
| Yuan, 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | 7 | Good |
| Suzuki, 2012 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 10 | Excellent |
| Tsay, 2005 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | Good |
| Maa, 2013 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 9 | Excellent |
| AminiSaman, 2018 | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 9 | Excellent |
| Zheng, 2012 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 9 | Excellent |
| Matsumoto-Miyazaki, 2017 | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | x | x | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | Fair |
| Hsu, 2006 | ✓ | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ✓ | 2 | Low |
| Pfab, 2011 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | Good |
| Kao, 2017 | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | x | x | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | Fair |
| Ben-arie, 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 11 | Excellent |
1: eligibility criteria and source of participants; 2: random allocation; 3: concealed allocation; 4: baseline comparability; 5: blinded participants; 6: blinded therapists; 7: blind assessors; 8: adequate follow-up; 9: intention-to-treat analysis; 10: between-group comparisons; 11: point estimates and variability.