TABLE 2.

PEDro assessment quality results of included studies.

References	Eligibility*	Random allocation	Concealed allocation	Baseline comparability	Blind subjects	Blind therapists	Blind assessors	Adequate follow-up	Intention-to-treat analysis	Between-group comparisons	Point estimates and variability	Total score (0–10)	Quality
Barra et al. (2022)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9	Excellent
Cavinato et al. (2019)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9	Excellent
Chen et al. (2021)	Yes	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6	Good
Chi et al. (2018)	Yes	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6	Good
Estraneo et al. (2017)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	8	Good
Guo et al. (2021)	Yes	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6	Good
Huang et al. (2017)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9	Excellent
Li et al. (2021)	YES	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6	Good
Martens et al. (2018)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	8	Good
Martens et al. (2019)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	8	Good
Martens et al. (2020)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9	Excellent
Thibaut et al. (2014)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9	Excellent
Thibaut et al. (2017)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	8	Good
Thibaut et al. (2019a)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9	Excellent
Wu et al. (2019)	Yes	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	8	Good
Zhang et al. (2017)	Yes	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	8	Good
Zhang et al. (2020)	Yes	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	8	Good

*Eligibility criteria is not included in the scoring of PEDro scale.