| PEDro scale is used to assess the quality of the study based on 11 separate criteria. The first point of PEDro evaluation addresses the eligibility criteria as outlined by the authors. Baldassin, Gomes, and Beraldo (2009) clearly describe the eligibility criteria they had applied to determine the subjects eligible for participation. The researchers only admitted participants over 18 years of age who showed strong signs of plantar fasciitis, with a focus on patients who had experienced the first-step pains and great tenderness at the heels.
Secondly, the PEDro scale assesses the grouping of the subjects. Here, the subjects were randomly allocated to groups, which satisfies the second criterion of the scale. The allocation of the subjects was concealed, and the results of allocation were distributed in opaque sealed envelopes, which satisfies the next criterion of the PEDro scale. Criterion 4 emphasizes the importance of the groups having similar baseline characteristics.
Given that the initial eligibility criteria used by the researchers during the recruitment process applied to all of the participants, it can be assumed that this criterion was also met in the study. Criteria 5 to 7 assess the blindfolding of all the participants, therapists, and assessors. The authors mention the blindfolding practices applied to the participants and their physiotherapists. For instance, all insoles were made to look the same so that the participants would not know which ones they received (Baldassin et al., 2009). The therapists were unable to see the patients’ orthoses and had no access to their previous medical records (Baldassin et al., 2009).
Overall, the precautions applied in the studies satisfy criteria 5 and 6 of the PEDro scale. However, the study does not mention whether or not the blinding practices were applied to assessors, too, which is the next criterion. For instance, the researchers mention that as soon as the randomization procedure was complete, the authors were not blinded to their allocation groups for the rest of the study (Baldassin et al., 2009). This does not comply with blinding standards as outlined in PEDro scale.
The next criteria of the assessment concern the results obtained and their presentations. The results of the study were obtained from 88% of the participants that were initially selected for the study, which satisfies Criterion 8 of the scale. The authors explain that 12% of the participants did not return for the follow-ups, and thus did not participate in the subsequent questionnaires (Baldassin et al., 2009). The majority of the remaining subjects, however, attended all follow-ups and thus received the treatment as planned, by their allocation group (Baldassin et al., 2009). For those who have missed some of the appointments, the authors performed a sensitivity analysis and, if no information was available, used the score from the previous evaluation. Overall, the conditions of Criterion 9 of the scale are also satisfied in the study.
The analysis of results provided by the authors is relatively short; however, the authors draw a statistical comparison between the two groups in terms of the improvement of pain and tenderness in the affected area, including both point measures and measures of variability in the comparison. The analysis of results satisfies the last two criteria of the scale. All in all, the study scores 10 out of 11 points on the PEDro scale, which shows that this is a high-quality study with reliable results.
|