Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality of included studies based on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale

From: Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation alone and in combination with rehabilitation therapies on gait and balance among individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Point estimates & variability

Between group comparison

Intention to treat

Adequate follow-up

Blind assessors

Blind therapists

Blind subjects

Baseline comparability

Concealed allocation

Random allocation

Eligibility criteria*

Total score

Methodological quality

Benninger et al., 2010 [45]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Beretta et al., 2020 [46]

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Bueno et al., 2019 [47]

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

Y

8

Good

Chang et al., 2017 [61]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

Y

8

Good

Conceição et al., 2021 [63]

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

Y

6

Good

Costa-Ribeiro et al., 2017 [55]

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Y

9

Excellent

Criminger et al., 2018 [42]

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

Y

6

Good

Dagan et al., 2018 [43]

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Y

8

Good

Fernández-Lago et al., 2017 [57]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

Y

5

Fair

Kaski et al., 2014 [41]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Lattari et al., 2017 [48]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Lee et al., 2021 [20]

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

Y

6

Good

Manenti et al., 2014 [49]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Manenti et al., 2016 [58]

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Y

8

Good

Manor et al., 2021 [50]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

Y

9

Excellent

Mishra et al., 2021 [51]

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Y

8

Good

Mishra et al., 2022 [64]

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Na et al., 2022 [56]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Papen et al., 2014 [62]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

Y

5

Fair

Schabrun et al., 2016 [59]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

Y

9

Excellent

Silva et al., 2018 [16]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Swank et al., 2016 [53]

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

Y

6

Good

Valentino et al., 2014 [54]

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

Y

6

Good

Wong et al., 2022 [44]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

Yotnuengnit et al., 2018 [60]

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Y

7

Good

  1. Yes (Y) = 1 point, No (N) = 0 point; * = not included in total score; < 4 = Poor, 4–5 = Fair, 6–8 = Good, 9–10 = Excellent