Skip to main content

Table 2 PEDro ratings and Level of Evidence of the included studies

From: Reverse Periodization for Improving Sports Performance: A Systematic Review

Study

PEDro ratings

Oxford Level of Evidence

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

Arroyo-Toledo et al. [26]

Yes

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

4

2b

Clemente-Suarez et al. [27]

No

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

5

1b

Bradbury et al. [28]

Yes

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

6

2b

Clemente-Suarez et al. [29]

Yes

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

6

2b

Clemente-Suarez et al. [31]

No

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

4

1b

Arroyo-Toledo et al. [34]

Yes

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

4

2b

Gómez Martín et al. [35]

Yes

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

5

2b

Prestes et al. [36]

Yes

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

6

2b

Clemente-Suarez et al. [41]

Yes

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

4

2b

Clemente-Suárez et al. [43]

No

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

5

2b

Rhea et al. [42]

Yes

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

5

2b

  1. Items in the PEDro scale: 1 = eligibility criteria were specified; 2 = subjects were randomly allocated to groups; 3 = allocation was concealed; 4 = the groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators; 5 = measures of 1 key outcome were obtained from 95% of subjects initially allocated to groups; 6 = 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 1 key outcome were analyzed by "intention to treat"; 7 = the results of between-group statistical comparison are reported for at least 1 key outcome; 8 = the study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least 1 key outcome