Skip to main content

Table 5 Methodological quality assessment of the studies using PEDro scale

From: The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: a systematic review

 

Eligibility criteria specified

Randomized allocation

Concealed allocation

Baseline similarity

Blinded subjects

Blinded therapists

Blinded assessors

Adequate follow-up

Intention to treat analysis

Comparison between groups

Point estimates and variability

Total

Abdollahi et al. [52]

Yes

1a

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7/10b

Bouchard et al. [61]

Yes

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

8/10

Cesqui et al. [58]

Yes

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

3/10

Givon-Mayo et al. [63]

Yes

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

3/10

Huang and Patton [59]

No

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

3/10

Kahn et al. [55]

Yes

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

4/10

Majeed et al. [62]

Yes

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

6/10

Patton et al. [53]

Yes

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

5/10

Patton et al. [24]

Yes

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1/10

Rozario et al. [60]

Yes

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

4/10

Takahashi et al. [56]

Yes

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

5/10

Timmer-mans et al. [57]

Yes

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

8/10

Tropea et al. [54]

Yes

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

6/10

  1. aItems that were not reported were scored as 0, and reported items were scored as 1. Evaluation was conducted by two reviewers. bInterpretation of scores: high quality- 6 points or more, fair quality- 4-5 points, poor quality- less than 4 points