Aerobic Exercise- subacute
Introduction
It has been shown that patients with stroke have been shown to have low endurance during exercise, likely due to both the event and also as a secondary reaction to forced inactivity. It is also known that there is a positive connection between aerobic capacity and functional performance (Katz-Leurer et al. 2003). This module focuses on aerobic exercise as an intervention for people who are in the sub-acute phase (1-6 months post stroke) of recovery.
Authors*: Adam Kagan, B.Sc.; Anita Petzold, BSc OT; Nathalie Serrat, BSC PT; Amanda Ischayek BSc PT; Sabrina Ianni, BSc, PT; Caroline Labelle, BSc PT; Sukhdeep Johal, Bsc PT; Monica Trozzo BSc. PT; Elissa Sitcoff, BA BSc; Annabel McDermott, OT; Nicol Korner-Bitensky, PhD OT
Expert Reviewers: Janice Eng, PhD PT; Pamela Duncan, PhD PT(C)
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
Blood oxygen level.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |