The PEDro scale assesses the methodological quality and statistical reporting of a randomised trial against 11 individual criteria ( Maher et al 2003). One item relates to external validity and the remaining 10 items can be tallied to give a score from 0 to 10 ( de Morton 2009). Participants: Trials involving patients with Parkinson’s disease, regardless of gender or level of disability, were eligible. Age, gender, and severity of the disease was recorded using the http://www.selleckchem.com/products/kpt-330.html Hoehn and Yahr Scale, where reported. Intervention: The experimental intervention had to be progressive resistance exercise, defined as movement against progressively increased resistance. It had to be of a dose that

could be expected to improve strength, ie, it had to involve repetitive, strong, or effortful muscle contractions, and it had to be stated or implied that the intensity was progressed as ability changed. Outcome measures: Continuous measures of muscle strength (eg, force, torque, work, EMG) and physical performance (sit-to-stand time, fast and comfortable walking speeds, 6-min walk test, stair descent and ascent, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, Timed Up and Go test, and the Short Physical Performance Battery) were used in the analysis where

available. Otherwise, ordinal measures of strength (eg, Manual Muscle Test) were used. When both limbs were trained, the most affected limb was used in the analysis. Data were extracted from the included trials Linifanib (ABT-869) Histone Demethylase inhibitor by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Information about the method (design, participants, intervention, and measurements) and outcome data (number of participants and mean

and standard deviations of strength and measures of physical performance) were extracted. Where information was not available in the published trials, details were requested from the author listed for correspondence. All trials reported pre-and post-intervention scores. Postintervention scores were used in the meta-analysis. When the same Libraries methods of measurement were used, the effect size was reported as a weighted mean difference with a 95% CI. When different methods were used, the effect size was reported as Cohen’s standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. After confirmation of low heterogeneity with the I2 statistic, the analyses were performed using The MIX– Meta-Analysis Made Easy program (Bax et al 2006, Bax et al 2008) and pooled estimates were obtained using a fixed effects model. The search strategy identified 339 papers. After screening titles and abstracts, 8 full papers were retrieved. After assessment against the inclusion criteria, 2 randomised trials (Allen et al 2010a, Hirsch et al 2003) and 2 quasirandomised trials (Dibble et al 2006, Schilling et al 2010) were included in the review. Figure 1 shows the trial selection process. Quality: The mean PEDro score of the trials was 5 ( Table 1). Two trials were randomised trials that had mean PEDro scores of 8 and 5.