A distinction was made between studies with good, moderate, and poor quality based on the quality description. Evidence synthesis For the best evidence www.selleckchem.com/products/kpt-330.html synthesis, we used

the following rules adapted from Van Tulder et al. (2003) and De Croon et al. (2004): (1) if there are four or more studies, the statistically significant findings of 75% or more of the studies in the same direction were taken into account; (2) if there are three studies, the statistically significant findings of at least two studies in the same direction were taken into account; (3) if there are two studies, the statistically significant findings of both studies in the same direction

were taken into account; (4) if there is one study, the statistically significant finding was taken into account. Otherwise, the evidence is “conflicting” regarding the relation between a performance-based measure and work participation. In addition, using the methodological quality scores, the corresponding level of evidence was scored as strong where the Dactolisib research buy result is based on at least two or more good-quality studies, moderate in case of one good-quality study, and limited in all other cases. Results Search strategy The search strategy resulted in 588 studies in PubMed and 642 studies in Embase. learn more A total of 167 duplicate studies were found in these two databases. After applying the inclusion criteria to the remaining

1,063 studies, 17 studies remained. Chapter 21 “The scientific status of functional capacity evaluation” of Rho the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Functional Ability did not result in an additional study. Neither did the experts suggest any additional studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Finally, checking the references of the included studies resulted in one more study, making a total of 18 studies from eight countries: Canada, China, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States of America. Quality of the studies The two raters agreed on a total of 261 of the 288 items (91%) for the 18 studies, with a mean difference of 1.5 per paper (SD 1.7, range 0–4). After reaching consensus, five (28%) of the 18 studies were of good quality and the remaining thirteen (72%) of moderate quality (Table 1). The mean quality score was 12 (SD = 2, range 9–14).