Table 3

- The results of the quality assessment of the included intervention studies.

Quality assessment	Corresponding & authors
Quality assessment	Hung et al²⁷	Zimmer et al²⁰	Courneya et al²²	Streckmann et al¹⁸	Vallerand et al²⁵	Persoon et al²⁸	Furzer et al²⁴	Chuang et al¹⁷	Van Dongen et al²⁶	Yeh et al¹⁹	Courneya et al²¹	Courneya et al²³
Eligibility criteria were specified	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Subjects were randomly allocated to groups (in a crossover study, subjects were randomly allocated an order in which treatments were received)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Allocation was concealed	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
There was blinding of all subjects	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No
Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome was analysed by “intention to treat”	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Total score	6/10	5/10	7/10	7/10	7/10	8/10	5/10	6/10	6/10	6/10	7/10	7/10
Level of evidence (based on Sackett)	1b	2b	1b	1b	1b	1b	2b	1b	1b	1b	1b	1b