Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee tendinopathies and other soft tissue disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 1 Guidelines of evidence synthesis^a

Level of evidence	Criteria of judgement
Strong	Provided by consistent^b, statistically significant pooled results in SMD or OR derived from multiple RCTs, including at least two high-quality RCTs^c
Moderate	Provided by statistically significant results in one high-quality RCT^c or Provided by inconsistent^b, statistically significant pooled results in SMD or OR derived from multiple RCTs, including at least one high-quality RCT^c or Provided by consistent^b, statistically significant pooled results in SMD or OR derived from multiple medium-quality RCTs^c.
Limited	Provided by statistically significant results in one medium-quality RCT^c or Provided by inconsistent^b, statistically significant pooled results in SMD or OR derived from multiple RCTs, including at least one medium-quality RCT^c or Provided by consistent^b, statistically significant pooled results in SMD or OR derived from multiple low-quality RCTs^c
Very limited	Provided by statistically significant results in one low-quality RCT^c or Provided by inconsistent^b, statistically significant pooled results in SMD or OR derived from multiple low-quality RCTs^c
Conflicting	Provided by inconsistent^b, statistically non-significant results in SMD or OR derived from multiple RCTs regardless of quality

RCT randomized controlled trial, SMD standard mean difference, OR odds ratio
^aEstablished in accordance with the “Best-evidence synthesis” which was adapted by Dorrestijn et al. [78] from the van Tulder’s criteria [79]
^bPooled results are considered consistent if no statistically significant heterogeneity (I², P > 0.05) been identified and those are considered inconsistent if statistically significant I² (P < 0.05) been identified
^cMethodological quality of a study is rated based on PEDro score as high (≥7/10), medium (4–6/10), and low (≤3/10)

ISSN: 1471-2474