Scoring of the included studies for methodological quality according to the Delphi list
| Study | Items* | Level of evidence | Degree of evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | 1B | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Score | |||
| For a description of the degree and the level of evidence, see table 1. +, answer to question is yes; –, answer to question is no. | ||||||||||||
| *1A, was a method of random performed for the treatment allocation?; 1B, was the treatment allocation concealed?; 2, were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most prognostic indicators?; 3, were the eligibility criteria specified?; 4, was the outcome assessor blinded?; 5, was the care provider blinded?; 6, was the patient blinded?; 7, were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures?; 8, did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis? | ||||||||||||
| Roos et al (2004)23 | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | + | + | 6/9 | B | 2 |
| Mafi et al (2001)24 | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | 4/9 | B | 2 |
| Niesen-Vertommen et al (1992)25 | – | – | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | 3/9 | C | 2 |
| Silbernagel et al (2001)4 | – | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | 4/9 | B | 2 |
| Alfredson et al (1998)18 | – | – | + | + | – | – | – | + | – | 3/9 | B | 2 |
| Fahlström et al (2003)26 | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | 2/9 | B | 2 |
| Shalabi et al (2004)27 | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | 2/9 | C | 2 |
| Alfredson et al (2003)28 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | 1/9 | C | 3 |
| Stanish et al (1986)29 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0/9 | C | 3 | |