Evidence of Rehabilitative Impact of Progressive Resistance Training (PRT) Programs in Parkinson Disease: An Umbrella Review

Table 2

Methodological quality.

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11
Saltychev et al. [27]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Tillman et al. [28]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Chung et al. [29]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N/A
Roeder et al. [30]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y
Lima et al. [22]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Cruisckshank et al. [31]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	Y	Y	N
Uhrbrand et al. [32]	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
Brienesse and Emerson [21]	Y	Y	N/A	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

Legend: Q1 = Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated?; Q2 = Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question?; Q3 = Was the search strategy appropriate?; Q4 = Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate?; Q5 = Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?; Q6 = Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?; Q7 = Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction?; Q8 = Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate?; Q9 = Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?; Q10 = Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data?; Q11 = Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?; N = no, Y = yes; N/A = not applicable.