Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation for People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 2

The PEDro methodological quality score for studies included (Y = yes and N = no).

Study author/s (year)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Total score

Methodological quality

Van der Mark et al. (2013)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

7

Good

Barboza et al. (2019)

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

8

Good

Ferrazzoli et al. (2017)

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

7

Good

Clarke et al. (2016)

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

6

Good

Monticone et al. (2015)

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

6

Good

Sturkenboom (2012)

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

6

Good

1. Eligibility criteria were specified. 2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups. 3. The allocation was concealed. 4. The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators. 5. There was a blinding of all subjects. 6. There was blinding of all the therapists who administered the therapy. 7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome. 8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups. 9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome was analyzed by ‘‘intention to treat.” 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.