Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimates of Quality and Reliability With the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database Scale to Assess the Methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions

Foley, Norine C, Bhogal, Sanjit K, Teasell, Robert W, Bureau, Yves, Speechley, Mark R·2006·Physical Therapy

Abstract

Background and Purpose. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses often include an evaluation of the methodological quality of the individual studies that have been included, and are usually conducted by at least 2 individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the methodological quality and reliability of a series of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions by use of the 10-item Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database (PEDro) Scale. Methods. Two abstractors independently reviewed 81 RCTs assessing a variety of interventions. The Cohen kappa statistic and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess agreement between abstractors. Results. The average total PEDro scores were 5.94 (SD=1.43) for all studies combined, 6.88 (SD=1.2) for pharmacological studies, and 5.29 (SD=1.26) for nonpharmacological studies. The median score for pharmacological studies was significantly higher than that for nonpharmacological studies (7 versus 5). Pair-wise kappa scores ranged from a low of .452 for concealed allocation among drug trials to perfect agreement (1.00) for randomization and reporting of results from between-group comparisons. The ICCs associated with the cumulative PEDro score were .91 (95% confidence interval [CI]=.83–.94) for all studies, .89 (95% CI=.78–.95) for pharmacological studies, and .91 (95% CI=.84–.952) for nonpharmacological studies. Discussion and Conclusion. The methodological quality for pharmacological interventions was significantly higher than that for nonpharmacological interventions. There was good agreement between raters at an individual item level and in total PEDro scores. A lack of reporting clarity, poor organization of the report, or the failure to include salient details contributed to less-than-perfect agreement between raters. [Foley NC, Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, et al. Estimates of quality and reliability with the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database Scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions.Phys Ther. 2006;86:817 – 824.]

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ptj/86.6.817

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Foley, N. C., Bhogal, S. K., Teasell, R. W., Bureau, Y., & Speechley, M. R.
Venue
Physical Therapy
Published
2006-06-01
Volume
86
Issue
6
Pages
817-824
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
OpenAlex
W2140641303
Cited by
231
References
6
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimates of Quality and Reliability With the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database Scale to Assess the Methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ptj/86.6.817
The paper
Foley, N. C., Bhogal, S. K., Teasell, R. W., Bureau, Y., & Speechley, M. R. (2006). Estimates of Quality and Reliability With the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database Scale to Assess the Methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/86.6.817

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.