Table 4

Included articles—methodological quality (PEDro analysis)

	Score	Methodological quality	PEDro item number
Study	Score	Methodological quality	1*	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Bishop et al14	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Bishop et al15	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Brandenburg19	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Cé et al37	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Cochrane et al22	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Demura et al18	5	Fair	✓			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
DeRenne et al27	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Evans et al13	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Fradkinet al10	5	Fair	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓
Franco et al35	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Gelen et al17	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Haag et al33	5	Fair	✓			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Higuchi et al29	5	Fair	✓			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Huang et al23	7	Good	✓	✓		✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Ingham et al20	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Kato et al21	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Khamwong et al41	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Knudson et al34	4	Fair	✓							✓	✓	✓	✓
Molacek et al36	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Montoya et al28	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Moran et al9	5	Fair	✓			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Nepocatych et al24	5	Fair	✓			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Nosaka and Clarkson12	5	Fair	✓			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Nosaka et al43	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Otsuji et al30	6	Good	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Sedgwick and Whalen44	4	Fair	✓							✓	✓	✓	✓
Southard and Groomer31	4	Fair	✓	✓						✓	✓	✓
Symons et al42	7	Good	✓	✓		✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓
Takizawa et al11	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Torres et al32	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
Wilcox et al16	6	Good	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	✓

*Not included in methodological quality scoring