2015
DOI: 10.3138/ptc.2014-37f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Une version franco-canadienne de la Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale : L'Échelle PEDro

Abstract: The four rigorous steps of the translation process have produced a valid Canadian French version of the PEDro scale.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
5

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
8
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The first two authors independently assessed the method quality for the relevant studies using the French–Canadian version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale (PEDro; Brosseau et al . ). This scale, developed by Moseley et al .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The first two authors independently assessed the method quality for the relevant studies using the French–Canadian version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale (PEDro; Brosseau et al . ). This scale, developed by Moseley et al .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The first two authors (CM, OH) independently assessed the methods' quality of relevant studies using the French-Canadian version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. 20,21 This scale comprises 11 items measuring the following criteria: 22 (1) specification of the eligibility criteria for participation; (2) random allocation of participants; (3) concealed allocation; (4) similarity between groups in relevant variables at pre-test; (5) blinding of participants; (6) blinding of the investigators administering the program; (7) blinding of the assessors measuring the dependent variables; (8) proportion of participants having at least one dependent variable measured; (9) compliance of participants with the intervention; (10) statistical comparisons between groups; and (11) point measures and measures of variability provided for at least one dependent variable. A score of 1 was awarded each time a criterion was satisfied, and a total score was obtained by summing up the results obtained from items 2 to 11.…”
Section: Quality Assessment Of the Reviewed Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three tables were developed to show the scientific quality presented in the articles, which was determined by consensus. Table 1 presents the articles that were evaluated with the quality assessment tool for pre-post case series without a control group (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, 2014), Table 2 presents the randomized clinical studies evaluated with the PEDro scale (Brosseau et al, 2005), and Table 3 presents the qualitative or mixed studies evaluated with the criteria proposed by Cesario et al (2002). Among the 19 quantitative and qualitative design articles analyzed, the scientific quality was high for twelve, moderate for six, and low for only one.…”
Section: Scientific Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%