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