Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality items and quality scoring of studies using pressure pain threshold

From: Manipulation-induced hypoalgesia in musculoskeletal pain populations: a systematic critical review and meta-analysis

1st author, year Was PPT measured correctly, & was reliability pre-tested? Was the assessor blinded? Was there appropriate random number generation & concealment? Were active & control interventions well described? Were practitioners appropriate & sufficiently experienced? Were attempts made to keep participants naïve to study aims? If sham-controlled, were they blinded, & confirmed? Were study conditions controlled? Was there control for psychosocial modifiers/ confounders? Was a sample size calculation performed & met? Were losses and exclusions reported clearly? Missing data reported? Imputation method reported & appropriate, if required? Were estimates & p-values/CIs reported for between-group differences? Quality score
Casanova-Méndez 2014 [28] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Were naïve (1) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met, NR based on what (0.5) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 8
Coronado 2015 [33] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met, NR based on what (0.5) Yes (1) Yes, acceptably imputed (1) Yes (1) 8
Kardouni 2015 [35] Technique ✔, pre-testing found reliable (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Blinding confirmed effective (1) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done, NOT met (0) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 8
Bautista-Aguirre 2017 [27] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 7.5
Martínez-Segura 2012 [21] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 7.5
De Oliveira 2013 [32] Technique ✔, pre-testing found reliable (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) Not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) Calculation based on subjective pain intensity (0) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 7
Maduro de Camargo 2011 [30] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Method NR (0) Yes (1) Yes (1) Were naïve (1) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met (1) No (0) NR (0) Yes (1) 6.5
Packer 2014 [24] NR if PPT tested × 3, not pre-tested (0) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Blinded, not checked, NR if naïve (0.5) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 6.5
Salom-Moreno 2014 [31] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Yes (1) 6.5
Côté 1994 [25] NR if PPT tested × 3, not pre-tested (0) Yes (1) Concealment method NR (0.5) Yes (1) NR (0) Not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) Calculation done & met (1) Yes (1) NR (0) p-value non-significant, estimates & CIs NR (1) 5.5
Lopez-Lopez 2015 [29] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (1) NR (0) Not naïve (0) NR (0) Yes (1) Calculation based on subjective pain intensity (0) Yes (1) NR (0) No (0) 5.5
Mansilla-Ferragut 2009 [26] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Concealment method NR (0.5) Yes (1) Yes (1) Not blinded, not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) No calculation (0) No (0) NR (0) Yes (1) 5
Fernández-Carnero 2008 [34] Technique ✔, not pre-tested (0.5) Yes (1) Method NR (0) Yes (1) Yes (1) Not blinded, not naïve (0) NR (0) No (0) No calculation (0) No (0) NR (0) Yes (1) 4.5
  1. Note: points given per item in brackets. Abbreviations: ✔ Correct, CIs Confidence intervals, NR Not reported, PPT Pressure pain threshold
Back to article page

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X