Skip to main content

Table 2 Rating of studies according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale

From: Effects of Upper-Body Plyometric Training on Physical Fitness in Healthy Youth and Young Adult Participants: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Scorea

Study quality

Aloui et al. [86]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Alvarez et al. [87]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Bouagina et al. [88]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Carter et al. [89]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Chelly et al. [90]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Cuevas-Aburto et al. [91]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Faigenbaum et al. [92]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Fernandez-Fernandez et al. [93]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Fernandez-Fernandez et al. [94]

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

4

Moderate

Haghighi et al. [95]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Hammami et al. [96]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Hasan et al. [82]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Heiderscheit et al. [40]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Ioannides et al. [97]

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Mangine et al. [26]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Marta et al. [98]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Martins et al. [99]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Newton et al. [41]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Pardos-Mainer et al. [110]

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Pereira et al. [20]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Pienaar et al. [100]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Santos et al. [28]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Santos et al. [101]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Schulte-Edelmann et al. [83]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Singh Vishen et al. [84]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Singla et al. [102]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Sortwell et al. [103]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Swanik et al. [85]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Szymanski et al. [104]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Thaqi et al. [105]

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Turgut et al. [106]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Valades et al. [21]

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

5

Moderate

Vossen et al. [107]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Wilson et al. [108]

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Good

Young et al. [109]

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

5

Moderate

  1. aFrom a possible maximal score of 10. A detailed explanation for each PEDro scale item can be accessed at https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale; In brief: item 1, eligibility criteria were specified; item 2, participants were randomly allocated to groups; item 3, allocation was concealed; item 4, the groups were similar at baseline; item 5, there was blinding of all participants regarding the upper-body plyometric training programme being applied; item 6, there was blinding of all coaches responsible for the application of the upper-body plyometric training programme regarding its aim; item 7, there was blinding of all assessors involved in measurement of upper-body outcomes; item 8, measures of outcome variables were obtained from more than 85% of participants initially allocated to groups; item 9, all participants for whom upper-body outcomes were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, data were analysed by “intention to treat”; item 10, the results of between-group statistical comparisons were reported; and item 11, measures of variability for at least one upper-body outcome were provided