Table 2

Methodological quality scores of the included recent and additional randomised clinical trials (RCTs)

ReferenceAdequate randomisation?Allocation concealment?Blinding? Patients?Blinding? Caregiver?Blinding? Outcome assessors?Incomplete outcome data addressed? Dropouts?Incomplete outcome data? ITT analysis?Free of suggestions of selective outcome reporting?Similarity of baseline characteristics?Cointerventions avoided or similar?Compliance acceptable in all groups?Timing of the outcome assessment similar?Maximum scoreScore studyPer cent
Giombini et al17++−−++++?+++12975
Johansson et al18+?−−++++++++12975
Aktas et al19+++−++−++??+12867
Dickens et al20+?−−++++?+?+12758
Lombardi et al21+?−−++++?−?+12650
Senbursa et al22??−−−++++?++12650
Walther et al23??−−?+?+++?+12542
Werner et al24??−−?+++−?++12542
Sauders25+??−+??++??+12542
Cheng and Hung26??−−?+−++??+12433
Methodological quality scores of Green et al16*
Random allocation?Concealed allocation?Blind participants?Blind therapists?Blind assessors?Adequate follow-up?Between-group comparisons?Intention-to-treat analysis?Baseline comparability?Specification of eligibility criteria?Availability of point estimates and measures of variability of primary outcome measures?Score maximumScore studyPer cent
Nykanen27+−+++++−+++11982
Saunders28+?+++−+++++11982
Vecchio et al29+−+++++−+++11982
Berry et al30+−−−+++−+++11764
Conroy and Hayes31+−−−+++−+++11764
Dal Conte et al32+−++−++−++−11764
Bang and Deyle et al33+−−−−++−+++11655
Brox et al34+−−−+−+++−+11655
Perron and Malouin35+−−−+++−+−+11655
Methodological quality scores of Green et al 200515†
Random allocation?Concealed allocation?Blind subjects?Blind therapists?Blind assessors?Adequate follow−up?Between-group comparisons?Intention-to-treat analysis?Baseline comparability?Specification of eligibility criteria?Availability of point estimates and measures of variability of primary outcome measures?Score maximumScore studyPer cent
Berry30+−−n.p.+++−+++10770

  • *Based on the PEDro scale (specifically designed and validated for the assessment of validity for trials of physiotherapy interventions) http://ptwww.cchs.usyd.edu.au/pedro/.

  • †Based on the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook (Alderson et al36).

  • +, Yes; −, no; ?, unclear/unsure.

  • ITT, intention-to-treat.