Table 3

APEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale evaluation of studies in the review

	Waldorff et al 200314	Downs et al 200616	Rondeau et al 200819	Chodosh et al 200618	Wenger etal 200917	Vollmar et al 201020	Perry et al 200813	Callahan et al 200626	Vickrey et al 200624	Fortinsky et al 200927	Clarke et al 200425

Study Design	Controlled before and after study	Cluster randomised trial^a	Cluster RCT	Cluster RCT	Controlled trial	Cluster RCT	RCT	RCT	Cluster RCT	Cluster RCT	RCT
Eligibility criteria were specified	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Random allocation to intervention	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Allocation concealed	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Intervention groups similar at baseline	No^b	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No^d	Yes	Yes	Yes	No^c	Yes

Blinding of all participants	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No

Blinding of all therapists	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes

Blinding of all assessors	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Partial	No

Measures of at least 1 outcome obtained from >85% of participants	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Intention to treat analysis	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No

Results of between interventions group statistical comparisons are reported for at least 1 outcome	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least 1 key outcome	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

TOTAL (maximum points = 11)	4	6	5	8	5	5	6	9	8	7	8

↵a Unblended, cluster randomised, before and after controlled study
↵b Except all from geographically similar areas.
↵c Groups of patients similar, but some statistically significant differences in caregiver group for example, age and male sex
↵d Groups of patients similar, but there were more single handed GPs in the ‘classical learning’ group than the ‘blended learning’ group, and significance for this difference has not been calculated.