Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment summary clustered by research design

From: Impact of contextual factors on patient outcomes following conservative low back pain treatment: systematic review

Reference (year)

Quality of reporting

(10 items)

Range: 0–11 points

External validity

(3 items)

Range: 0–3 points

Internal validity

(7 items)

Range: 0–7 points

Selection bias/confounding

(6 items)

Range: 0–6 points

Statistical power

(1 modified item)

Range: 0–1 points

Total score

(27 items)

Range: 0–28 points

Overall grading

Excellent (24–28)

Good (19–23)

Fair (14–18)

Poor (< 14)

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

       

[35] (2011)

11

2

7

6

0

26 (92.9%)

Excellent

[36] (2013)

10

3

7

5

0

25 (89.3%)

Excellent

[37] (2014)

11

0

7

6

1

25 (89.3%)

Excellent

[38] (2022)

11

2

6

5

1

25 (89.3%)

Excellent

[39] (2019)

11

1

6

6

1

25 (89.3%)

Excellent

[40] (2016)

10

2

6

6

0

24 (85.7%)

Excellent

[41] (2017)

10

3

7

4

0

24 (85.7%)

Excellent

[42] (2010)

10

1

6

6

0

23 (82.1%)

Good

[43] (2020)

10

2

5

5

1

23 (82.1%)

Good

[44] (2021)

10

2

4

6

1

23 (82.1%)

Good

[45] (2017)

10

0

6

5

1

22 (78.6%)

Good

[46] (2019)

9

2

6

3

0

20 (71.4%)

Good

Reference (year)

Quality of reporting

(10 items)

Range: 0–11 points

External validity

(3 items)

Range: 0–3 points

Internal validity

(7 items)

Range: 0–7 points

Selection bias/confounding

(4 items)

Range: 0–4 points

Statistical power (1 modified item)

Range: 0–1 points

Total score

(25 items)

Range: 0–26 points

Overall grading

Excellent (22–26)

Good (18–21)

Fair (13–17)

Poor (< 13)

Controlled clinical trials (CCT; non-randomised)a

       

[47] (2017)

10

2

6

4

1

23 (88.5%)

Excellent

[48] (2012)

10

1

5

3

0

19 (73.1%)

Good

[49] (2018)

7

1

5

3

1

17 (65.4%)

Fair

Reference (year)

Quality of reporting

(10 items)

Range: 0–11 points

External validity

(3 items)

Range: 0–3 points

Internal validity

(5 items)

Range: 0–5 points

Selection bias/confounding

(2 items)

Range: 0–2 points

Statistical power (1 modified item)

Range: 0–1 points

Total score

(21 items)

Range: 0–22 points

Overall grading

Excellent (19–22)

Good (16–18)

Fair (11–15)

Poor (< 11)

Quasi-experimental (uncontrolled)b

       

[50] (2015)

9

3

5

2

0

19 (86.4%)

Excellent

[51] (2017)

10

1

5

2

0

18 (81.8%)

Good

Reference (year) 

Quality of reporting

(9 items)

Range: 0–10 points

External validity

(3 items)

Range: 0–3 points

Internal validity

(5 items)

Range: 0–5 points

Selection bias/confounding

(3 items)

Range: 0–3 points

Statistical power (1 modified item)

Range: 0–1 points

Total score

(21 items)

Range: 0–22 points

Overall grading

Excellent (19–22)

Good (16–18)

Fair (11–15)

Poor (< 11)

Observational Cohort (uncontrolled)c

       

[52] (2013)

10

3

5

3

0

21 (95.5%)

Excellent

[53] (2013)

10

2

5

3

0

20 (90.9%)

Excellent

[54] (2011)

10

2

4

2

1

19 (86.4%)

Excellent

[55] (2019)

8

2

5

3

1

19 (86.4%)

Excellent

  1. The following inapplicable items were not included in the quality assessment for this study design:
  2. aSelection bias sub-scale: -Q23. Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups?; Q24. Was the randomised intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable?
  3. bInternal validity sub-scale:—Q14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received?; Q15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? Selection bias sub-scale:—Q22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited over the same period of time?; Q23. Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups?; Q24: Was the randomised intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable?; Q25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn?
  4. cReporting sub-scale: -Q8. Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported?; Internal validity sub-scale:—Q14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received?; Q15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention?; Selection bias sub-scale:—Q22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited over the same period of time?; Q23. Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups?; Q24: Was the randomised intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable?
Back to article page

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X