Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality items and scores of 12 studies included in a systematic review on spinal manipulation and pressure pain threshold

From: The regional effect of spinal manipulation on the pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic subjects: a systematic literature review

First author
Year
Country
[ref #]
Is there a description of the random allocation?
1)Randomization method
2) Concealment
Is treatment performed by experienced person? Is the intervention described?
1. SM
2. Sham
3. Comparison
4. Control
Is the assessment blinded?
1.Assessor/intervention
2.statistician/intervention
The sham procedure:
(Yes/No/NA)
1.Naïve subjects
2. In the same position as SM?
3. Assessed
Conclusion: Is the sham psychologically acceptable (1 pt), possibly acceptable (0.5 pt), not acceptable (0 pt)
If comparison between interventions are the subjects naïve?
(Yes/No/NA)
Is the measurement procedure described? Is reliability of the outcome variables reported? Were pain readings taken more than once at each point? After the study started, are losses and exclusions of study subjects reported or evident? Score for sham studies Score for comparison studies
Fryer 2004 Australia [21] 1) Yes
2) No
No 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) NA
1) Yes
2) No
1. No
2. No
3. No
No Yes Yes Yes No   
     Conclusion: Not acceptable        
0.5 0 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 0 5/9 5/9
Ruiz-Saez 2007 Spain [16] 1) Yes
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) NA
4) NA
1) Yes
2) No
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
NA Yes Yes Yes Yes   
     Conclusion: Acceptable        
0.5 1 1 0.5    1 1 1 1   
     1       8/9 NA
Fernandez de las Penas 2007 Spain [19] 1) No
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
1) Yes
2) No
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
Yes Yes Yes Yes No   
     Conclusion: Acceptable        
0 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0 6,5/9 6.5/9
Hamilton 2007 Australia [20] 1) Yes
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) NA
1) Yes
2) No
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
Yes Yes Yes Yes No   
     Conclusion: Possibly acceptable        
0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 0 6,5/9 7/9
Fernandez de las Penas 2008 Spain [18] 1) Yes
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
1) Yes
2) No
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
Yes Yes Yes Yes No   
     Conclusion: Acceptable        
0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1    
          0 7/9 7/9
Thomson 2009 Sweden [13] 1) Yes
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) NA
1) Yes
2) No
1. No
2. No
3. No
No Yes Yes Yes No   
     Conclusion: Not acceptable        
0.5 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 1 1    
          0 6/9 6/9
Oliveira Campelo 2010 Spain [22] 1) Yes
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) NA
3) Yes
4) Yes
1) Yes
2) No
NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   
0.5 1 1 0.5   1 1 1 1 1   
           NA 8/9
Bishop 2011 USA [24] 1) Yes
2) No
No 1) Yes
2) NA
3) Yes
4) Yes
1) No
2) No
NA Yes Yes No No No   
0.5 0 1 0   1 1 0 0    
          0 NA 3.5/9
Yu 2012 China [15] 1) Yes
2) No
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) NA
3) NA
1) Yes
2) No
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
NA Yes Yes Yes Yes   
     Conclusion: Acceptable        
0.5 1 1 0.5 1   1 1 1 1 8/9 NA
Srbely 2013 Canada [17] 1) Yes
2) Yes
Yes 1) Yes
2) Yes
3) NA
4) NA
1) Yes
2) No
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
NA Yes No Yes Yes   
     No Conclusion: Acceptable        
1 1 1 0.5    1 0 1    
     1      1 7,5/9 NA
Jordon 2016 USA [23] 1) Yes
2) Yes
Yes 1) Yes
2) NA
3) Yes
4) Yes
1) Yes
2) No
NA Yes Yes Yes No Yes   
1 1 1 0.5   1 1 1 0    
          1 NA 7.5/9
Alonso Perez 2016 Spain [22] 1) Yes
2) Yes
Yes 1) Yes
2) NA
3) Yes
4) NA
1) Yes
2) No
NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   
1 1 1 0.5   1 1 1 1    
          1 NA 8.5/9
  1. NA Not applicable, SM Spinal manipulation