Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 25, 2026.

PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Susan Armijo-Olivo, Bruno R. da Costa, Greta G. Cummings and 4 more

PLOS ONE · 2015 · Meta-analysis · CC BY

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132634

Abstract

Objective. There is debate on how the methodological quality of clinical trials should be assessed. We compared trials of physical therapy (PT) judged to be of adequate quality based on summary scores from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale with trials judged to be of adequate quality by Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria.

Design. Meta-epidemiological study within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Methods. Meta-analyses of PT trials were identified in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For each trial PeDro and Cochrane assessments were extracted from the PeDro and Cochrane databases. Adequate quality was defined as adequate generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors (Cochrane criteria) or as trials with a PEDro summary score ≥5 or ≥6 points. We combined trials of adequate quality using random-effects meta-analysis.

Results. Forty-one Cochrane reviews and 353 PT trials were included. All meta-analyses included trials with PEDro scores ≥5, 37 (90.2%) included trials with PEDro scores ≥6 and only 22 (53.7%) meta-analyses included trials of adequate quality according to the Cochrane criteria. Agreement between PeDro and Cochrane was poor for PeDro scores of ≥5 points (kappa = 0.12; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.16) and slight for ≥6 points (kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.32). When combining effect sizes of trials deemed to be of adequate quality according to PEDro or Cochrane criteria, we found that a substantial difference in the combined effect size (≥0.15) was evident in 9 (22%) out of the 41 meta-analyses for PEDro cutoff ≥5 and 10 (24%) for cutoff ≥6.

Conclusions. The PeDro and Cochrane approaches lead to different sets of trials of adequate quality, and different combined treatment estimates from meta-analyses of these trials. A consistent approach to assessing RoB in trials of physical therapy should be adopted.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 25, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the design of choice when comparing two or more healthcare interventions. Appropriately conducted RCTs minimize confounding and bias and thus allow causal inferences regarding the effects of interventions. However, when not appropriately done, RCTs may yield biased estimates. Thus, it is imperative to consider the risk of bias (RoB) in RCTs when reviewing evidence for clinical decision making.

The importance of incorporating RoB assessments in evidence synthesis is widely recognized. It is good practice to ascertain whether or not results differ between trials at greater or lesser RoB. However, the approaches to perform such assessments have been inconsistent: a wide variety of checklists and scales have been developed to evaluate RoB in RCTs. The use of different items varies between tools, some items are used without empirical evidence or theoretical rationale, and different checklists and scales are used in different research areas, suggesting lack of agreement regarding their relevance.

The use of summary scores from quality scales, where a study typically receives one point for each item met by the study has been criticized on several grounds. The effects of essential criteria, such as concealment of allocation, may be diluted or confounded by the summary quality score, if the latter includes items not related to RoB, or not important in a given context. Indeed, items that are important in some situations may not be relevant in other situations, yet they receive the same weight in the quality scale. For example, blinding of study participants is crucial for pain assessment or management, but irrelevant for all-cause mortality. Therefore, the Cochrane Bias Methods Group and Statistical Methods Group recommend that summary scores obtained from quality scales should not be used. Rather, relevant biases should be assessed one by one, including the domains of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other context-specific biases.

The debate on how best to assess the risk of bias of RCTs included in meta-analytic research has resurfaced recently in the field of physical therapy, where the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale is widely used. Ten items (see S1 Table) contribute to a summary score, where a score of 5 or 6 typically defines adequate trial quality. Most items relate to design biases but others concern trial reporting, for example whether or not confidence intervals or other measures of variability were included in the article.

We performed a meta-epidemiological study of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses in physical therapy. Our aim was to determine the agreement between the Cochrane and the PeDro approaches to identifying physiotherapy trials of adequate quality and to examine whether or not the approach chosen (PEDro or Cochrane) may affect the conclusions of meta-analyses in physical therapy.

Literature search and eligibility criteria

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) from Jan 1 2005 to May 25 2011 for meta-analyses of physical therapy interventions using the free-text words ‘physical therapy’, ‘physiotherapy’, ‘rehabilitation’, ‘exercise’, ‘electrophysical agents’, ‘acupuncture’, ‘massage’, ‘transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS)’, ‘interferential current’, ‘ultrasound’, ‘stretching’, ‘chest therapy’, ‘pulmonary rehabilitation’, ‘manipulative therapy’, ‘mobilization’, and related terms. For the detailed search strategy see S1 Appendix. Meta-analyses were eligible if they included at least three RCTs of physical therapy interventions according to the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) with a continuous outcome. If there were several eligible outcomes, we chose the primary outcome as specified by the authors. If the primary outcome was not eligible or not specified, the outcome that contained the largest number of trials was chosen.

PEDro Scores and Cochrane RoB assessment

When available, quality assessments of RCTs included in reviews were obtained from the PEDro database (see also http://www.pedro.org.au) or the Cochrane reviews. If a trial was not included in the PEDro database or no Cochrane RoB assessment had been done, we performed the assessments ourselves. Two reviewers (CH, DP, AC, JF, or HS) independently assessed trials, with discrepancies resolved by discussion or consultation with S.A-O. We trained assessors using 10 trials not included in the study, based on relevant guidelines. As described in detail elsewhere, the PEDro and Cochrane training assessments were discussed in a group meeting to determine consistency in ratings, and calibrate assessments. We defined trials of adequate quality as having adequate generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors (based on the Cochrane RoB tool) or as trials with a PEDro summary score of at least 5 or 6 points, the cutoffs widely used in the literature.

Data extraction of treatment estimates and trial characteristics

Two reviewers independently extracted data on means, standard deviations, standard errors, and sample sizes from each RCT. Data on the design of the trial, type of intervention (including information on intensity, frequency, dosage), condition, outcome (objective, subjective), funding source, publication year, and statistical analysis were also collected. We defined outcomes as objective or subjective following the approach by Wood et al.

Statistical analysis

We calculated the kappa (κ) statistics for categorical data to assess the agreement between the PeDro scores and the Cochrane approach for classifying trial quality. We used the criteria proposed by Byrt to interpret kappa values: values of 0.93 to 1 represent excellent agreement; 0.81 to 0.92 very good agreement; 0.61 to 0.80 good agreement; 0.41 to 0.60 fair agreement; 0.21 to 0.40 slight agreement, 0.01 to 0.20 poor agreement; and less than 0.01 no agreement.

We calculated standardized effect sizes for each trial using Cohen’s approach using approximations when necessary. We followed the Cochrane reviews to determine the comparison included for analysis (i.e. treatment of interest and control group). The statistical analysis allowed both for heterogeneity between trials within a meta-analysis and for heterogeneity between meta-analyses. In a first step we used inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses to combine effect sizes across trials and calculated the DerSimonian and Laird estimate of the between trial variance (tau squared). Calculations were done separately for trials classified as of adequate quality based on PEDro summary scores and for trials of adequate quality according to the Cochrane RoB tool. We combined effect sizes from trials of adequate quality according to PeDro scores or Cochrane approach for each meta-analysis.

Differences in combined estimates between PeDro and Cochrane were considered relevant if they corresponded to 0.15 standard deviation units or more, a difference that corresponds to a clinically relevant treatment effect.

Stata statistical software (version 12, College Station, Texas) was used to perform the analyses. Results are presented as kappa statistics or standardized effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The study was approved by the Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Pro00038172).

Selection and characteristics of meta-analyses and randomised trials

The search identified 3901 Cochrane reviews, with 271 reviews potentially relevant to physical therapy. Of these, 68 reviews included a meta-analysis of at least three studies of physical therapy interventions and used a continuous outcome. We randomly selected 42 meta-analyses but excluded one because it used follow-up data from the same group rather than a control group for comparison (Fig 1). Forty-one meta-analyses, 353 trials and 42,342 patients contributed to the analysis. Table 1 and S2 Table detail the characteristics of the reviews. Briefly, the reviews were published between 2008 and 2011 and included meta-analyses of the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions for musculoskeletal (22 reviews) cardiorespiratory (8 reviews), neurological (6 reviews), and other areas of physical therapy (5 reviews). A median number of 6 trials were included in each meta-analysis (interquartile range 5–8). Most trials were parallel group trials (330; 93%), single-center studies (270; 76.5%) and had active control interventions (325; 91.5%). Trials compared two groups (222; 62.9%), three groups (82; 23.2%) or four or more groups (49; 13.9%). The most common intervention was exercise (n = 246, 69.7%). Electrophysical agents, manual therapy, education, and acupuncture were used in 15 (4.2%), 14 (4.0%), 10 (2.8%), and 8 trials (2.3%) respectively. The remaining trials used a combination of exercise and physical agents, manual therapy and other treatments such as respiratory exercises.

Trials of adequate quality according to PeDro scores and Cochrane RoB tool

PEDro scores were obtained from the PEDro database for 333 trials (94.3%) and determined by us for 20 trials (5.7%). Similarly, Cochrane RoB assessments were available from the Cochrane reviews for 314 trials (89.0%) and done by us for 39 (11.0%) trials. A total of 97 (27.5%), 70 (19.8%), 50 (14.2%) and 36 (10.2%) trials had PEDro summary scores of 5, 6, 7, or 8 points, respectively. Among trials with PEDro summary scores of 5 (97 trials), only 11 trials (11.3%) were of adequate quality according to the Cochrane RoB domain approach. The corresponding numbers for 6, 7 or 8 points on the PEDro scale were 9 trials (12.9%), 14 trials (28%) and 20 trials (55.6%) (Table 2). Only few trials of adequate quality based on the PeDro scale had adequate allocation concealment or blinding of outcome assessors. For example, among the 97 trials with a PEDro score of 5 points, only 21 (21.6%) had adequate concealment of allocation and 23 trials (23.7%) had adequate blinding of assessors (Table 2).

Agreement on adequate quality between PeDro scores and Cochrane RoB tool

Agreement between PeDro and Cochrane for the definition of adequate quality across all meta-analyses was poor for PeDro scores >5 or more (kappa 0.12; 95% CI 0.07–0.16), slight for a score >6 or more (kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.16–0.32), and 7 or more (kappa 0.39; 95% CI 0.286–0.510), and fair (kappa 0.44; 95% CI 0.314–0.574) for 8 points and more (Fig 2).

Differences in treatment effects between trials of adequate quality trials defined according to PEDro scores and Cochrane RoB tool

All 41 meta-analyses included adequate quality trials based on a PEDro score of 5 or more, and 37 (90.2%), 30 (73.2%) and 19 (46.3%) meta-analyses included adequate quality trials based on scores of at least 6, 7 or 8. In contrast, 22 (53.7) meta-analyses did not include any adequate quality trials using the Cochrane RoB domain approach (S3 Table). An extreme example was the meta-analysis by Liu et al. which included only one trial of adequate quality according to the Cochrane approach but 29, 18, 9, and 5 trials of adequate quality when using PeDro scores of 5, 6, 7, and 8 points, respectively.

When combining effect sizes of trials deemed to be of adequate quality according to PEDro or Cochrane criteria, we found that a substantial difference in the combined effect size (> 0.15) was evident in 9 (22%) out of the 41 meta-analyses for PEDro cutoff >5 and 10 (24%) for the cutoff >6 (Table 3). In addition to this difference, 19 and 15 systematic reviews (46% and 37%) did not have adequate quality trials by Cochrane approach but they had trials of adequate quality by PeDro ≥5 points and ≥6 points respectively. Considering this as a discrepancy as well, an overall discrepancy existed between 2 approaches in 28 meta-analyses (68%) and 25 meta-analyses (61%) for PeDro ≥5 points and ≥6 points respectively.

Discussion

In this meta-epidemiological study we found that depending on the approach used to assess the risk of bias, PEDro scores or Cochrane criteria, different trials were considered to be of adequate quality. Unsurprisingly the combined estimates of treatment effects from these adequate quality trials differed substantially, depending on the approach chosen and the cutoff score used to define adequate quality. This may have important implications for decision making since different recommendations will be made based on different treatment effects obtained from meta-analyses of trials considered of adequate quality.

There were substantial disagreements between the two methods regarding which and how many trials are considered to be of adequate quality. Almost 60% of trials were considered to be of adequate quality based on the PeDro cut off of ≥5 points, which is widely used in the literature. However, many of these trials did not meet the accepted quality standards such as generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of study assessors defined by the Cochrane RoB tool. Previous studies have shown that these trial features can have a substantial impact on the estimates of treatment effect. For example, inadequate allocation concealment may overestimate treatment effects by 5% to 30% and lack of double-blinding may overestimate effects by 9% to 44%. Biased estimates from individual trials can lead to biased results and misleading conclusions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This can in turn affect patient care through different recommendations and decisions in clinical practice. Indeed, the differences observed in our study are clinically relevant: in a substantial proportion of meta-analyses the differences in effect sizes between the two approaches was 0.15 or greater. The typical treatment effect in physical therapy is in the range of 0.1 to 0.8.

Our results are consistent with studies that showed that bias may be introduced when summary quality scores are used as an eligibility criterion for trials to be included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Analyzing a smaller number of trials, Greenland, Colle, and Juni and colleagues showed that using different tools for evaluating quality of primary research in meta-analyses can lead to different results. Summary scores dilute the effect of items that are important for the risk of bias with items that are not related to the internal validity of trials, but to the quality of reporting of trials. Although transparent reporting is important to assess the quality of trial conduct, a focus on quality of reporting in quality scores can hide differences in trial conduct and lead to under- or over-estimation of the methodological quality.

Interestingly, despite having been developed for clinical trials of physical therapy the PEDro scale does not contain items specific to this field. Because physical therapy clinical trials are more complex than drug trials, compliance and standardization of treatment protocols, reliable application of the intervention, and skills, training, and experience of therapists are all issues of particular importance to physical therapy.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-epidemiological study addressing the question of how best to assess trials for inclusion in meta-analyses in physical therapy. One of the main strengths of this study is the large number of meta-analyses and trials included. Most previous studies looked at one systematic review only. We restricted our analysis to Cochrane systematic reviews in physical therapy and results might not be applicable to all Cochrane reviews conducted in other areas of research. However, similar results have been previously obtained in different areas of health research with smaller sample of trials and meta-analyses

In conclusion, we found that the PeDro and Cochrane approaches to identifying RCTs of adequate quality lead to different sets of trials and different combined treatment estimates from meta-analyses of these trials. A consistent approach to assessing RoB in trials of physical therapy based on the Cochrane RoB tool rather than a summary score from the PEDro scale should be adopted.

References 73

  1. 1.

    Nuesch E, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Rutjes AWS, Liewald K, Sterchi R, et al The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: A meta-epidemiologic study. Arthritis Care and Research. 2009;61(12):1633–41.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.24894

  2. 2.

    Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AWS, Burgi E, Scherer M, et al The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2009;339(7722):679–83.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.b3244

  3. 3.

    Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, et al Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;157(6):429–38.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537

  4. 4.

    Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995;273(5):408–12.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.273.5.408

  5. 5.

    Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.ad

  6. 6.

    Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Medical Journal. 2001;323(7303):42–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42

  7. 7.

    Armijo-Olivo S, Fuentes CJ, Ospina M, Saltaji H, Hartling L. Inconsistency in the Items Included in Tools Used in General Health Research and Physical Therapy to Evaluate the Methodological Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Descriptive Analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13(116):1–19.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2288-13-116

  8. 8.

    Armijo-Olivo S, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review. Physical Therapy. 2008;88(2):156–75.

    Not in our library10.2522/ptj.20070147

  9. 9.

    Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1995;16(1):62–73..

    Not in our library10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-w

  10. 10.

    Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading: Reply to "re: A critical look at some popular analytic methods". American Journal of Epidemiology. 1994;140(3):300–1.

    Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248

  11. 11.

    Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999;282(11):1054–60.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.282.11.1054

  12. 12.

    Da Costa BR, Hilfiker R, Egger M. PEDro's bias: Summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2013;66(1):75–7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.003

  13. 13.

    Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 50. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2008.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Goetzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(7829).

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.d5928

  15. 15.

    Costa LOP, Maher CG, Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Shiwa SR, Herbert RD, et al Da Costa and colleagues' criticism of PEDro scores is not supported by the data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2013;66(10):1192–3.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.007

  16. 16.

    Herbert R, Moseley A, Sherrington C. PEDro: a database of randomised controlled trials in physiotherapy. Health information management: journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia. 1998;28(4):186–8.

    Not in our library10.1177/183335839902800410

  17. 17.

    Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C, Elkins MR. Reported quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions has improved over time. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(6):594–601.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.009

  18. 18.

    Armijo-Olivo S, Saltaji H, da Costa BR, Ha C, Fuentes CJ, Cummings G. What is the influence of randomization sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study. Submitted. 2015.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008562

  19. 19.

    World Confederation for Physical Therapy. Position statement: standards of physical therapy practice. World Confederation for Physical Therapy, 2011.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy. 2003;83(8):713–21.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.
    Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. · 2014
    Not checked
  22. 22.

    Byrt T. How good is that agreement? Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 1996;7(5):561.

    Not in our library10.1097/00001648-199609000-00030

  23. 23.

    Cohen J. Chapter 1: The Concepts of Power Analysis In: Cohen J, editor. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second ed. Hillsdale, New jersey: Academic Press, INc; 1988 p. 1–17.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Scherer M, Trelle S, Bürgi E, Bürgi U, et al Meta-analysis: Chondroitin for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;146(8):580–90.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-146-8-200704170-00009

  25. 25.

    Sterne JAC, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21(11):1513–24.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1184

  26. 26.

    DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2007;28(2):105–14.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004

  27. 27.

    Abdul Latif L, Daud Amadera JE, Pimentel D, Pimentel T, Fregni F. Sample size calculation in physical medicine and rehabilitation: A systematic review of reporting, characteristics, and results in randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(2):306–15.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.apmr.2010.10.003

  28. 28.

    Dorstyn D, Mathias J, Denson L. Applications of telecounselling in spinal cord injury rehabilitation: A systematic review with effect sizes. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2013;27(12):1072–83.

    Not in our library10.1177/0269215513488001

  29. 29.

    Barker AL, Talevski J, Morello RT, Brand CA, Rahmann AE, Urquhart DM. Effectiveness of aquatic exercise for musculoskeletal conditions: A meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(9):1776–86.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.apmr.2014.04.005

  30. 30.

    Pollock A, Baer G, Langhorne P, Pomeroy V. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2007;21(5):395–410.

    Not in our library10.1177/0269215507073438

  31. 31.

    Spittle A, Orton J, Doyle LW, Boyd R. Early developmental intervention programs post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairments in preterm infants Database of SystematicReviews (2007)Issue:2 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd Chichester 2007.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd005495.pub2

  32. 32.

    Fransen M, McConnell S, Hernandez MG, Reichenbach S. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Reviews 2009, Issue 3 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD007 2009.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    Handoll-Helen HG, Cameron ID, Mak-Jenson CS, Finnegan TP. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2009, Issue 4 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002 2009.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd007125.pub2

  34. 34.

    Harvey LA, Brosseau L, Herbert RD. Continuous passive motion following total knee arthroplasty in people with arthritis Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2010, Issue 3 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd004260.pub2

  35. 35.

    Katalinic OM, Harvey LA, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Lannin NA, Schurr K. Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2010, Issue 9 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14 2010 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd007455.pub2

  36. 36.

    Manheimer E, Cheng K, Linde K, Lao L, Yoo J, Wieland S, et al Acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Reviews 2010 Issue 1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd001977.pub2

  37. 37.

    Ostelo-Raymond WJG, Costa-Leonardo OP, Maher CG, de-Vet-Henrica CW, van-Tulder MW. Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2008, Issue 4 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2008.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd003007.pub2

  38. 38.

    Rutjes-Anne WS, Nüesch E, Sterchi R, Jüni P. Therapeutic ultrasound for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2010,Issue 1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD00 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd003132.pub2

  39. 39.

    Rutjes-Anne WS, Nüesch E, Sterchi R, Kalichman L, Hendriks E, Osiri M, et al Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009: Issue;4 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd Chichester CD002823 2009.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd002823.pub2

  40. 40.

    Schaafsma F, Schonstein E, Whelan KM, Ulvestad E, Kenny DT, Verbeek JH. Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2010, Issue 1 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd001822.pub2

  41. 41.

    Davies P, Taylor F, Beswick A, Wise F, Moxham T, Rees K, et al Promoting patient uptake and adherence in cardiac rehabilitation Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2010, Issue 7 JohnWiley& Sons Ltd Chichester, UK 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd007131.pub2

  42. 42.

    Effing T, Monninkhof-Evelyn EM, Valk-Paul PDLP, Zielhuis-Gerhard GA, Walters EH, van der Palen JJ, et al Self-management education for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2007, Issue 4 JohnWiley& Sons Ltd Chichester, UK 2007.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd002990.pub2

  43. 43.

    Puhan MA, Gimeno SE, Scharplatz M, Troosters T, Walters EH, Steurer J. Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2009, Issue 1 JohnWiley& Sons Ltd Chichester, UK 2009.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Taylor RS, Dalal H, Jolly K, Moxham T, Zawada A. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2010, Issue 1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD 2010.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd007130.pub2

  45. 45.

    Main E, Prasad A, van der Schans CP. Conventional chest physiotherapy compared to other airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis Main Eleanor, PrasadAmmani, van der SchansCeesPConventionalchest physiotherapycomparedto other airwayclearancetechniquesforcysticfibrosisCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2005Issue1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2005.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    O'Brien K, Nixon S, Tynan AM, Glazier R. Aerobic exercise interventions for adults living with HIV/AIDS O'BrienKelly, NixonStephanie, TynanAnneMarie, GlazierRichardAerobicexerciseinterventionsforadultslivingwithHIV/AIDSCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2010Issue8JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/146 2010.

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Jolliffe J, Rees K, Taylor-Rod RS, Thompson DR, Oldridge N, Ebrahim S. Exercise-based rehabilitation for coronary heart disease JolliffeJudith, ReesKaren, TaylorRodRS, ThompsonDavidR, OldridgeNeil, EbrahimShahExercisebasedrehabilitation forcoronaryheart diseaseCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2001Issue1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2001.

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    Shaw KA, Gennat HC, O'Rourke P, Del MC. Exercise for overweight or obesity ShawKellyA, GennatHanniC, O'RourkePeter, DelMarChrisExerciseforoverweightorobesityCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2006Issue4 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD003817pub3 2006.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L, Gatti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2009, Issue 4 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2009.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd004433.pub2

  50. 50.

    States RA, Pappas E, Salem Y. Overground physical therapy gait training for chronic stroke patients with mobility deficits Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2009, Issue 3 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK 2009.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd006075.pub2

  51. 51.

    Mead GE, Morley W, Campbell P, Greig CA, McMurdo M, Lawlor DA. Exercise for depression Mead GillianE, MorleyWendy, CampbellPaul, GreigCarolynA, McMurdoMarion, LawlorDebbieAExercisefordepressionCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2009Issue3 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD0043 2009.

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy VM, Langhorne P. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke CochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2007Issue1 JohnWiley& Sons Ltd Chichester, UK 2007.

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    Mehrholz J, Friis R, Kugler J, Twork S, Storch A, Pohl M. Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson's disease MehrholzJan, FriisRobert, KuglerJoachim, TworkSabine, StorchAlexander, PohlMarcusTreadmilltrainingforpatientswithParkinson'sdiseaseCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2010Issue1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK D. 2010.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Woodford HJ, Price C, I. EMG biofeedback for the recovery of motor function after stroke WoodfordHenryJ, PriceChristopherIMEMGbiofeedback fortherecoveryof motor functionafterstrokeCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2007Issue2 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD004585pub2 2007.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd004585.pub2

  55. 55.

    Watson L, Ellis B, Leng GC. Exercise for intermittent claudication WatsonLorna, EllisBrian, LengGillianCExerciseforintermittentclaudicationCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2008Issue4 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD000990pub2 2008.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd000990.pub2

  56. 56.

    Kramer MS, McDonald SW. Aerobic exercise for women during pregnancy KramerMichaelS, McDonaldSheilaWAerobicexerciseforwomen duringpregnancyCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2006Issue3 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD000180pub2 2006.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    Orozco LJ, Buchleitner AM, Gimenez PG, Figuls M, Richter B, Mauricio D. Exercise or exercise and diet for preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Reviews 2008, Issue 3 JohnWiley& Sons Ltd Chichester, UK 2008.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd003054.pub3

  58. 58.

    Bendermacher-Bianca LW, Willigendael EM, Teijink-Joep AW, Prins MH. Supervised exercise therapy versus non-supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication BendermacherBiancaLW, WilligendaelEdithM, TeijinkJoepAW, PrinsMartinHSupervisedexercisetherapyversusnon supervisedexercisetherapyforintermittentclaudicationCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2006Issue2 JohnWiley& 2006.

    Not in our library

  59. 59.

    Forster A, Lambley R, Hardy J, Young J, Smith J, Green J, et al Rehabilitation for older people in long-term care ForsterAnne, LambleyRuth, HardyJo, YoungJohn, SmithJane, GreenJohn, Burns EileenRehabilitation forolderpeoplein longtermcareCochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews: Reviews2009Issue1 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 10. 2009.

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    Liu Cj, Latham NK. Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults CochraneDatabaseof SystematicReviews Issue 3 JohnWiley& Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK doi: 101002/14651858CD00275 2009.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd002759.pub2

  61. 61.

    Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2007;36(4):847–57.

    Not in our library10.1093/ije/dym087

  62. 62.

    Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Seida JK, et al Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: Cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339(7728):1017.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.b4012

  63. 63.

    Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?[see comment]. Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–13..

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x

  64. 64.

    Balk EM, Bonis PAL, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JPA, Wang C, et al Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287(22):2973–82.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.287.22.2973

  65. 65.

    Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(10):1070–5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.018

  66. 66.

    Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001;135(11):982–9.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010

  67. 67.

    Hewitt CE, Kumaravel B, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(11):1264–70.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.010

  68. 68.

    Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. British Medical Journal. 2002;325(7358):249–52.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249

  69. 69.

    Trowman R, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Cranny G. The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60(12):1229–33.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.014

  70. 70.

    Colle F, Rannou F, Revel M, Fermanian J, Poiraudeau S. Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2002;83(12):1745–52.

    Not in our library10.1053/apmr.2002.35657

  71. 71.

    Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, et al Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: Observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. British Medical Journal. 2004;328(7430):22–4.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.328.7430.22

  72. 72.

    Kunz R, Autti-Ramo I, Anttila H, Malmivaara A, Makela M. A systematic review finds that methodological quality is better than its reputation but can be improved in physiotherapy trials in childhood cerebral palsy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2006;59(12):1239–48..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.009

  73. 73.

    Johnston BC, Da Costa BR, Devereaux PJ, Akl EA, Busse JW. The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: A systematic review. Spine. 2008;33(8):914–8.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e31816b4be4

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.