The PEDro scale provides a more comprehensive measure of methodological quality than the Jadad Scale in stroke rehabilitation literature

Objective: To systematically compare the PEDro scale and the Jadad scale when applied to the stroke rehabilitation literature. Study Design and Setting: A literature search of multiple databases was used to identify all trials from 1968 through 2002. Each article was reviewed and assigned quality scores according to PEDro and Jadad criteria. Quality scores for both scales were compared using descriptive statistics. The correlation between the scales was estimated using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. Results: 272 randomized controlled trials were retrieved and subjected to quality scoring to both the PEDro scale and the Jadad scale. Mean scores (with standard deviation) for the PEDro and Jadad scales were 5.78 (1.4) and 2.46 (1.1), respectively. The Pearson coefficient determined the PEDro and Jadad scales to be significantly correlated (r =.59, P < .01). Although significant, the correlation was not deemed to be very strong. When applied to physical or rehabilitation therapy studies only, the scales were slightly less correlated (r =.49, P < .01) than among drug-based studies (r =.52, P < .01). Conclusion: In the stroke rehabilitation literature, where double-blinding studies are often not possible due to the nature of the interventions, breaking down the levels of blinding and accounting for concealed allocation, intention-to-treat, and attrition is important. Accordingly, the PEDro scale provides a more comprehensive measure of methodological quality of the stroke literature. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.