Quality Assessment

Roger Chou; Richard Deyo; Janna Friedly; Andrea Skelly; Robin Hashimoto; Melissa Weimer; Rochelle Fu; Tracy Dana; Paul Kraegel; Jessica Griffin; Sara Grusing; Erika Brodt

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Noninvasive Treatments for Low Back Pain [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Feb. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 169.)

Appendix FQuality Assessment

Table F1Quality assessment of systematic reviews of acetaminophen

Study, Year	(1) ‘A priori’ design provided?	(2) Duplicate study selection and data extraction? Study selection Data extraction	(3) Comprehensive literature search performed?	(4) Status of publication used as an inclusion criteria?	(5) List of studies (included and excluded) provided?	(6) Characteristics of the included studies provided?	(7) Scientific quality of included studies assessed and documented?	(8) Scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?	(9) Methods used to synthesize the findings of studies appropriate?	(10) Likelihood of publication bias assessed?	(11) Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Quality Rating
Roelofs, 2008	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F2Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of acetaminophen

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Williams, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F3Quality assessment of systematic reviews of NSAIDs

Study, Year	(1) ‘A priori’ design provided?	(2) Duplicate study selection and data extraction? Study selection Data extraction	(3) Comprehensive literature search performed?	(4) Status of publication used as an inclusion criteria?	(5) List of studies (included and excluded) provided?	(6) Characteristics of the included studies provided?	(7) Scientific quality of included studies assessed and documented?	(8) Scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?	(9) Methods used to synthesize the findings of studies appropriate?	(10) Likelihood of publication bias assessed?	(11) Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Quality Rating
Roelofs, 2008	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F4Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of NSAIDs

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Herrmann, 2009	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Fair
Majchrzycki, 2014	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Fair
Shirado, 2010	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F5Quality assessment of systematic reviews of opioids

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Carson, 2011	Yes	Unclear Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No- only 4 of 38 excluded full text articles were listed in Appendix D	Yes	Yes	Qualitatively, yes	Yes	Systematic review: Yes	Unclear	Good
Chaparro, 2013	Yes	Yes to both	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes- but only for 36 of 76 excluded articles	Yes	Yes to both	No, except for analysis 4.1, examining results of studies with “enhanced enrollment”, meaning patients were enrolled only if they benefitted from opioids and tolerated side effects, then were randomized to opioid withdrawal.	Yes	Systematic review: Yes Individual studies: only for strong opioids	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F6Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of opioids

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There A Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Cloutier, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No; <20%	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Good
Hyup Lee, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No; 21%	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
Rauck, 2014	Unclear	Unclear	No; not sex	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No; 39%	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Poor
Schiphorst Preuper, 2014	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F7Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of SMRs

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment In All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Pareek, 2009	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Ralph, 2008	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F8Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of benzodiazepines

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Brotz, 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F9Quality assessment of systematic reviews of antidepressants

Study, Year	(1) ‘A priori’ design provided?	(2) Duplicate study selection and data extraction? Study selection Data extraction	(3) Comprehensive literature search performed?	(4) Status of publication used as an inclusion criteria?	(5) List of studies (included and excluded) provided?	(6) Characteristics of the included studies provided?	(7) Scientific quality of included studies assessed and documented?	(8) Scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?	(9) Methods used to synthesize the findings of studies appropriate?	(10) Likelihood of publication bias assessed?	(11) Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Quality Rating
Urquhart, 2010	Yes	Yes No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F10Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of antidepressants

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Farajirad, 2013	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Poor
Mazza, 2010	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Skljarevski, 2009	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Good
Skljarevski, 2010 (Journal of Pain)	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Skljarevski, 2010 (Spine)	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F11Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of antiseizure medications

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Baron, 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Baron, 2014	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Kalita, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Poor
Markman, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair
Pota, 2012	Unclear	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Fair
Romano, 2009	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Yaksi, 2007	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Poor

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F12Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of corticosteroids

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Eskin, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Friedman, 2008	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Good
Hedeboe, 1982	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Holve, 2008	No (sequential allocation)	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Poor
Rodrigues, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F13Quality assessment of systematic reviews of exercise

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Bystrom, 2013	Yes	a. Yes; b. no	>2 databases through October 2011; no mention of “plus” sources	No	Not stated	Yes	No	Yes	10-point PEDro scale marginally - score out of 10 provided; areas of methodological concern for studies not described	No; no information on heterogeneity provided	Yes	Systematic review: Yes, however 1 author is also author of one of the included trials Individual studies: No	Unclear	Fair
Oesch, 2010	Yes	a. Yes; b. No	Yes, >2 databases through Aug 2008; checked refs	No	Not stated	Yes	No	Yes	According to Juni Not by study	Metaregresion-NS Effect of specific exercise characteristics; sensitivity by study quality; funnel plot	Yes	Funding source stated No	Yes	Fair
van Middelkoop, 2010	Yes	a. Yes; b. Yes	Data bases through 2008 for CLBP only; unclear if additional sources	Cite Cochrane Back group strategy used - assume no restriction?	Cite Cochrane Back group strategy used - assume so?	Not explicitly; references provided	No	No	Yes Yes	No	Yes	No No	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F14Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of exercise

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Albaladejo, 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair (but results reporting poor)
Albert, 2012	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Fair
Bronfort, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
Garcia, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
George, 2008	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Poor
Hagen, 2010	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Fair
Hartvigsen, 2010	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair
Helmhout, 2008	Yes	Unclear	No	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Poor
Henchoz, 2010	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	No	Unclear	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Poor
Hofstee, 2002	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Poor
Hurley, 2015	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair
Jensen, 2012	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
Kell, 2011	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	Poor
Little, 2008	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Good
Macedo, 2012	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear/fair
Machado, 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Fair
Pengel, 2007	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear/ sham	No	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F15Quality assessment of systematic reviews of Pilates

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Wells, 2014	Yes	a. Yes; b. No	Yes, >2 databases including CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus	No	Yes (Proquest - dissertations and theses; Nursing and Allied Health Source; hand search of bibliographies	Yes	No	Yes	Yes: Modified Guidelines for use of the McMasters Critical Appraisal Form for Quantitative Studies	No; no metaanalysis done; quality rating	No ; Study quality (high vs. low quality) described w/results; conclusions regarding pain short term - may be over stated;	Yes No	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F16Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of tai chi

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Hall, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Fair
Weifen, 2013	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F17Quality assessment of systematic reviews of yoga

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Cramer, 2013	Yes	Not stated explicitly; Stated used PRISMA and Cochrane methods Yes	January 2012: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CAMBASE	Yes	No	Yes	Yes - full text; reason with citation	Yes	2009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group Yes	Yes; high vs. low ROB; if heterogeneity	Study quality considered; Conclusions regarding pain, disability are supported; HRQOL conclusions - seem to be downgraded more (short term) than rating scheme might suggest? Limited info on adverse events available, but conclude that Yoga not associated with serious adverse events	Systematic review: Yes Individual studies: No	Unclear	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F18Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of yoga

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Nambi, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	unclear	Poor
Saper, 2013	Yes	Unclear	No (But adjusted estimates for baseline differences were essentially the same as crude estimates)	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes use of other treatments overall: 53% (26/47) vs.. 61% (28/44); similar % for massage, PH, acupuncture, chiropractic, epidural injections	No; attendance: 65% for once weekly class, 44% for twice weekly classes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F19Quality assessment of systematic reviews of psychological therapies

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Henschke, 2010	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	No	Yes (yes)	Yes No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F20Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of psychological therapy

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Kahn, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Unclear (age, sex, duration of pain NR, slight differences in pain and function at baseline)	Yes (statement that patients were blind to the study)	No (but blinding not possible for these interventions)	Yes (outcomes patient reported)	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes (100%)	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	Fair
Lamb 2010/²⁰¹²	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No (but blinding not possible for these interventions)	Yes	No (control group free to seek any additional care on their own; additional treatments received not reported)	No Intervention group: 63% (294/468) Control group: 100% (233/233)	Yes	Yes (85% in both groups)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Fair
Siemonsma, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No (but blinding not possible for these interventions)	Yes	Yes	No Intervention group: 81.7% Control group (waiting list, no interventions permitted): Unclear	Yes	Yes (89% was lowest f/u reported (for activity-specific pain, 139/156)	Yes	No (Their fig 1 makes it look like all pts randomized were included in the primary analysis but the paragraph under “Primary Outcome” contradicts this.)	Yes	Yes	Fair
Vong, 2011	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes (patients told they would receive one of two types of conventional patient treatment but did not know anything about motivational enhancement therapy)	No (but blinding not possible for these interventions)	Yes (outcomes patient reported)	Yes	No Intervention group: 62% Control group: 63% (% of patients who participated fully)	Yes	yes (86%)	Yes	No (they said they used ITT but 12 patients who were randomized did not receive treatment and were excluded from all analyses)	No	Yes	Fair

Table F21Quality assessment of systematic reviews of multidisciplinary rehabilitation

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic review Individual studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Kamper, 2014	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F22Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of multidisciplinary rehabilitation

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Eisenberg, 2012	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	NA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Good
Gatchel, 2003	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	Unclear	NA	Yes	No	NA	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Fair
Monticone, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	NA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F23Quality assessment of systematic reviews of acupuncture

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Lam, 2013	Unclear	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes Yes	No	Unclear	Yes No	No	Fair
Lee, 2013	Unclear	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	No	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F24Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture

Author, Year	Randomization adequate?	Allocation concealment adequate?	Groups similar at baseline?	Eligibility criteria specified?	Patients masked?	Care provider masked?	Outcomes assessors masked?	Attrition and withdrawals reported?	Attrition acceptable and comparable?	Analyze people in the groups in which they were randomized	Primary outcome specified and reported?	Other issues	Quality Rating
Cho, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Hasagawa, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Vas, 2012	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (for acupuncture and sham groups only)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Yun, 2012 (back points)	Yes	Unclear, but likely ok - just says “central randomization with random block sizes”	Yes	Yes	Yes (only for acupuncture groups, not for usual care group)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Weiss, 2013	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Exploratory only	Poor

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F25Quality assessment of systematic reviews of massage

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Furlan, 2010	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F26Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of massage

Author, Year	Randomization adequate?	Allocation concealment adequate?	Groups similar at baseline?	Eligibility criteria specified?	Outcome assessors masked?	Care provider masked?	Patient masked?	Attrition and withdrawals reported?	Attrition acceptable and comparable?	Analyze people in the groups in which they were randomized	Primary outcome specified and reported?	Other issues?	Quality Rating
Ajimsha, 2014	Unclear	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Borges, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Cherkin, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes - for the two massage groups only	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Kong, 2012	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Romanowski, 2012	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Poor
Sritooma, 2014	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	No	No - not described	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Zhang, 2015	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Zheng, 2012	Yes	Unknown	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F27Quality assessment of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Rubinstein, 2011	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Good
Rubinstein, 2012	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes, but excluded from analysis	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F28Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of SMT

Author, Year	Randomization adequate?	Allocation concealment adequate?	Groups similar at baseline?	Eligibility criteria specified?	Patient masked?	Care provider masked?	Outcomes assessor masked?	Attrition and withdrawals reported?	Attrition acceptable and comparable?	Analyze people in the groups in which they were randomized	Primary outcome specified and reported?	Other issues	Quality Rating
Balthazard, 2012	Yes	Unclear	Yes - although pain slightly higher in sham group (53 vs. 62) but not statistically significant	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Bicahlo, 2010	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Incomplete reporting of outcomes (function)	Fair
Bronfort, 2004	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Unclear	Yes	No	Primary outcome not specified	Poor
Bronfort, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
Bronfort, 2014	Yes - minimization used, not randomization	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair - not blinded
Burton, 2000	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	None	Poor
Cecchi, 2010	Yes	Unclear	No - sick leave higher in back school group compared to other groups	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
De Oliviera, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Goertz, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No - low followup rate in the SMC group	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Haas, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Paatelma, 2008	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No - high drop out rate	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Petersen, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Santilli, 2006	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Schneider, 2015	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None	Good
Senna, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No - low followup rate in sham SMT group	Yes	Yes	None	Fair
Von Heymann, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No - low followup rate	Yes	Yes	Unclear intervention (Single treatment?), small sample size with high drop out rate	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F29Quality assessment of systematic reviews of ultrasound

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Ebadi, 2014	Yes	Yes/Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (considered in SOE analyses)	Yes	Yes/No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F30Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of ultrasound

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality (Cochrane Back Group)
Bronfort, 2011	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
Fiore, 2011	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Goren, 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Licciardone, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good
Unlu, 2008	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Poor

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F31Quality assessment of systematic reviews of TENS

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
van Middelkoop, 2011	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Yes Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes Yes	Unclear	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F32Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of TENS

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Buchmuller, 2012	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Facci, 2011	Yes	Yes	No; significant difference between TENS and control in pain intensity at baseline (p=0.009)	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Good
Shimoji, 2007	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Tsukayama, 2002	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F33Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of electrical stimulation

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality (Cochrane Back Group)	Comments
Durmus, 2009	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Poor	Some outcomes assessed as means and others as medians, no explanation provided
Durmus, 2010	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Poor	Some outcomes assessed as means and others as medians, no explanation provided
Glaser, 2001	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Poor	Very high loss to followup
Moore, 1997	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Poor	Crossover design, results of first intervention not reported and carryover effects not assessed
Pope, 1994	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F34Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of PENS

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Hamza, 1999	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Poor
Pérez-Palomares, 2010	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Poor
Weiner, 2008	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F35Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of interferential therapy

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Lara-Palomo, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F36Quality assessment of systematic reviews of heat-cold

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
French, 2006 Updated in French, 2011	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes (no reasons for exclusion provided)	Yes	Yes Yes	No	Yes	Yes No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F37Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of heat-cold

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality
Dehgan, 2014	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Kettenmann, 2007	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Stark, 2014	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Fair
Tao, 2005	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Poor

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F38Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of LLLT

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Ay, 2010	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Good
Djavid, 2007	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Hsieh, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Jovicic, 2012	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Konstantinovic, 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Good
Vallone, 2014	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F39Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of diathermy

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Ahmed, 2009	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Poor
Shakoor, 2008	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Poor

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F40Quality assessment of systematic reviews of lumbar supports

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
van Duijvenbode, 2011	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F41Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of lumbar support

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in all Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment In All Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Calmels, 2009	Yes	Unclear	Yes (reported in text; data not shown for some characteristics)	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Morrisette, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Oleske, 2007	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Sato, 2012	Yes	Unclear	Yes (reported in text; data not shown)	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Fair

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F42Quality assessment of systematic reviews of traction

Author, Year	“A priori” design provided?	Duplicate study selection and data abstraction? Study selection Data abstraction	Comprehensive literature search performed?	Non-English language studies considered for inclusion?	Conducted searches for unpublished (gray) literature?	List of included studies provided?	List of excluded studies provided with reasons?	Characteristics of the included studies provided?	Scientific quality of included studies: Assessed? Documented?	Sensitivity analyses or stratified analyses conducted according to study quality?	Study conclusions supported by the evidence? (Was study quality considered in the synthesis?)	Conflict of interest stated? Systematic Review Individual Studies	Multidisciplinary systematic review team?	Quality Rating
Wegner, 2013	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes No	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F43Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of traction

Author, year	Randomization	Concealed treatment allocation	Baseline group similarity	Patient blinded	Care provider blinded	Outcome assessor / Data analyst blinded	Cointerventions avoided or similar	Compliance acceptable in all groups	Attrition reported	Attrition acceptable	Timing of outcome assessment in all groups similia	Intention-to-treat analysis	Is there a registered or published protocol	Avoidance of selective outcomes reporting	Quality Rating
Diab, 2012 and Diab, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Fair
Moustafa, 2013	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Fair
Prasad, 2013	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Poor

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references.

Table F44Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of taping

Author, Year	Randomization	Concealed Treatment Allocation	Baseline Group Similarity	Patient Blinded	Care Provider Blinded	Outcome Assessor / Data Analyst Blinded	Cointerventions Avoided or Similar	Compliance Acceptable in All Groups	Attrition Reported	Attrition Acceptable	Timing of Outcome Assessment in all Groups Similar	Intention-to-Treat Analysis	Is There a Registered or Published Protocol	Avoidance of Selective Outcomes Reporting	Quality Rating
Bae, 2013	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Castro-Sanchez, 2012	Yes	Yes	P	Yes	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Good
Chen, 2012	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Kachanathu, 2014	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Poor
Paolini, 2011	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Fair
Silva Parreira, 2014	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Good

: Please see Appendix C. Included Studies for full study references

Bookshelf ID: NBK350264

Contents

< Prev Next >