Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of included reviews investigating ‘supervised rehabilitation frequency’

From: The Influence, Barriers to and Facilitators of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rehabilitation Adherence and Participation: a Scoping Review

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
  1. Methodological quality refers to the outcome of the quality appraisal undertaken by the review not the authors of this study. The conclusion stated is that of the included review in reference to the comparison of home versus clinic-based rehabilitation. The number of original studies is only those included in each review for the evaluation of home versus supervised rehabilitation