Effect of respiratory therapy on pulmonary functions in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review

Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy

Table 4 AACPDM methodological quality and level of evidence

Study	Level of evidence–quality	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1-Rothman [19]	I–W (3/7)	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
2-Hutzler et al. [20]	I–M (5/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
3-Lee et al .[21]	I–M (5/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
4-Choi et al. [22]	II–M (5/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
5-Shin and Kim [23].	I–M (4/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No
6-Keles et al., [24].	I–S (6/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
7-Kwon and Kim [25]	I–M (5/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
8-Kanna and Balabaskar [26]	II–M (5/7)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No

M Moderate, S Strong, W Weak
The AACPDM conduct questions: (a) Were inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study population well described and followed? (b) Was the intervention well described and was there adherence to the intervention assignment? (For 2 group designs, was the control exposure also well described?) Both parts of the question need to be met to score “yes.” (c) Were the measures used clearly described, valid, and reliable for measuring the outcomes of interest? (d) Was the outcome assessor unaware of the intervention status of the participants (i.e., were the assessors masked)? (e) Did the authors conduct and report appropriate statistical evaluation including power calculations? Both parts of the question need to be met to score “yes.” (f) Were dropout/loss to follow-up reported and less than 20%? For 2 group designs, was dropout balanced? (g) Considering the potential within the study design, were appropriate methods for controlling confounding variables and limiting potential biases used?