Table 2 Summary of included reviews investigating ‘supervised rehabilitation frequency’
Author (year) | Review type | Dates | Methodological quality | No. included original studies | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anderson et al. (2016) [13] | Systematic | 2004-14 | Not assessed | 4 | Inconclusive |
Andersson et al. (2009) [22] | Systematic | 1995-2009 | Severely limited by methodology quality | 7 | Inconclusive |
Coppola and Collins (2009) [23] | Systematic | 1980-2007 | Moderate quality | 3 | Inconclusive |
Kruse et al. (2012) [24] | Systematic | 2006-10 | Large biases in studies | 6 | Equally effective |
Lobb et al. (2012) [29] | Non-systematic | Until 2011 | Moderate evidence | 2 | Equally effective |
Papalia et al. (2013) [25] | Systematic | Until 2013 | Good quality | 10 | Equally effective |
Risberg et al. (2004) [26] | Systematic | Until 2003 | Significant limitations across studies | 3 | Equally effective |
Trees et al. (2005) [27] | Systematic | Until 2005 | Poor | 3 | Equally effective |
Wright et al. (2008) [28] | Systematic | Until 2005 | Biases present | 4 | Equally effective |