Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias table

From: The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

Author, Year 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11a 2.12a 2.13 2.14 2.15 3.5 Overall Ax
Goertz 2016 [81] Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y SMT: 0%
Sham: 1/27 = 4%
Y N/A Y High Quality
(++)
Hondras 1999 [37] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CS Y Y SMT: 2/69 = 3%
Sham: 1/69 = 1%
Y N/A Y High Quality
(++)
Balon 1998 [84] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SMT: 7/45 = 16%
Sham: 4/46 = 9%
CS CS Y High Quality
(++)
Olafsdottir 2001 [87] Y Y CS Y Y Y Y Y Y CS Y Y SMT: 1/46 = 2%
No SMT: 4/40 = 10%
Y N/A Y Acceptable
(+)
Ward 2015 [80] Y N Y Y CS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SMT: 0%
No contact control: 0%
Y N/A Y Acceptable
(+)
Chaibi 2017 [82] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SMT: 8/35 = 23%
Sham: 9/35 = 26%
Usual pharmacological care: 14/34 = 41%
N N/A Y Overall
Acceptable
(+)
SMT vs. Control
Low Quality
(−)
Miller 2012 [89] Y N Y Y CS CS Y Y Y CS Y Y Not blinded SMT: 7/33 = 21.2%b
Blinded SMT: 5/35 = 14.3%b
No SMT: 12/34 = 35.3%
CS N/A N Low Quality
(−)
Molins-Cubero 2014 [79] Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y SMT: 0%
Sham: 0%
Y N/A N Low Quality
(−)
Wiberg 1999 [85] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y CS Y Y SMT: 0%
Advice: 9/25 = 36%
CS N/A N Low Quality
(−)
Qu 2012 [90] Y Y CS CS N CS Y Y Y CS Y Y SMT: 0%
Medication: 0%
Y N/A Y Unacceptable
(0)
Bakris 2007 [88] N N Y CS CS CS Y Y Y CS Y Y SMT: 0/25 = 0%
Sham: 1/25 = 4%
Y N/A Y Unacceptable
(0)
Tuchin 2000 [86] Y Y N N N CS Y Y N CS CS Y SMT: max 4c
De-tuned IFT: max 4c
CS N/A N Unacceptable
(0)
Kokjohn 1992 [83] Y Y CS N CS CS CS Y Y CS Y Y SMT: 1/24 = 4.2%
Sham: 0/21 = 0%
Y N/A Y Unacceptable
(0)
Parker 1978 [78] Y Y CS N N CS N N N Y Y Y SMT: at least 2/85 = 2.4%c
Mob: max 4/85 = 4.7%c
Y CS N Unacceptable
(0)
  1. CS: can’t say; N: no; N/A: not applicable; Y: yes; ++: high quality; +: acceptable quality; −: low quality; 0: unacceptable quality/rejected
  2. IFT interferential therapy, Mob mobilization
  3. 2.1 Research Question
  4. 2.2 Definition of non-MSK condition
  5. 2.3 Randomization
  6. 2.4 Concealment
  7. 2.5 Participant blinding
  8. 2.6 Investigator blinding
  9. 2.7 Groups are similar at start of trial
  10. 2.8 Description of manipulation intervention
  11. 2.9 Description of control intervention
  12. 2.10 Only difference between groups is the treatment
  13. 2.11 Reliability of outcome
  14. 2.12 Validity of outcome
  15. 2.13 Drop-out percentage
  16. 2.14 Subject analysis/Intention-to-treat
  17. 2.15 Comparable sites (if multiple)
  18. 3.5 Appropriate analysis
  19. aRisk of bias table addresses primary outcome measures
  20. bParticipants were discharged but criteria for discharge were not outlined
  21. cDid not outline which groups the drop-outs belonged to