Table 1

Quality assessment of included studies
PEDro criteria* Akbari 2008 Da Fonesca 2009 Ferreira 2010 Haugstad 2006 Hides 1996&2001 Lalanne 2009 Magnussen 2008 Mannion 1999&2001 Marshall 2008 O’Sullivan 1997&1998 Ritaven 2007 Vasseljen 2010 , 2012 & Unsgaard-Tonsel 2010
1. Eligibility criteria were specified X X
2. Random allocation of subjects
3. Allocation was concealed X X X X X X X X
4. Groups similar at baseline X
5. There was blinding of all subjects X X X X X X X X X X X X
6. Blinding of therapists X X X X X X X X X X X
7. Blinding of assessors X X X X X
8. >1 key outcome was obtained for more than 85% of subjects initially allocated to groups X X X X
9. All subjects … received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome was analysed by ‘intention to treat’ X X X X X X X X X X
10. The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome
11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome X X
Total score 4 5 6 6 7 4 3 5 5 7 7 8
Assessor PEDro RL &PK PEDro PEDro PEDro PEDro PEDro PEDro PEDro PEDro PEDro RL &PK

* Item one is not included as part of the 10 point PEDro scoring.

Laird et al.

Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2012 13:169   doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-169

Open Data