Table 2

Methodological quality score of relevant studies

ReferenceStudy designA1A2A3A4BCDE1E2E3F1F2F3GTotal scorePercentage
Bahr et al16*Prospective11111110101982
Barrett et al17RCT111111111110111393
Cumps et al23CT11110111110111185
Curtis et al24*Prospective11111110001873
Emery et al25RCT1111111111111114100
Emery et al26RCT1111111111111114100
Engebretsen et al27RCT011110111110101071
Garrick and Requa18RCT011010111111101071
Holme et al28RCT11101001111001964
Hupperets et al29RCT100011111111111179
McGuine and Keene30RCT111111111101101286
McHugh et al31CT1010011110010754
Mickel et al32RCT00111011101011964
Moiler et al34CT1111011011010969
Olsen et al35RCT111111111110111393
Petersen et al36CT0111111101001969
Rovere et al19*Retrospective01101111111982
Sitler et al20RCT111111111111101393
Söderman et al37RCT111111111110111393
Surve et al21RCT01101011111010964
Tropp et al22RCT01101011101110964
Verhagen et al39CT11111111011111292
Wedderkopp et al40RCT11111011101000964
  • * This study was a non-randomised prospective or retrospective study. Therefore, a score for B (Is a randomisation procedure mentioned?), C (Are the intervention and control group homogenous with regard to the subject characteristics?) and G (Are the dropouts described for each group separately?) could not be assessed.

  • This study was a non-randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, a score for B (Is a randomisation procedure mentioned?) could not be assessed.

  • CT, controlled trial.