Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of Bias assessment of the included trials, according to the criteria by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group [19]

From: The effectiveness of manual and exercise therapy on headache intensity and frequency among patients with cervicogenic headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study authors

1. Was the method of randomization adequate?

2. Was the treatment allocation concealed?

3. Was the patient blinded to the intervention?

4. Was the care provider blinded to the intervention?

5. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention?

6. Was the drop out rate described and acceptable?

7. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were allocated?

8. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

9. Were groups similar at regarding the most important prognostic indicators?

10. Were co-interventions avoided or similar?

11. Was the compliance acceptable in all groups?

12. Was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups?

13. Are other sources of bias unlikely?

Overall risk of bias

Bodes-Pardo et al. [51]

Yes

Unsure

Unsure

No

Unsure

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Chaibi et al. [52]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Unsure

Yes

Yes

High

Dunning et al. [53]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Esin et al. [54]

Yes

Unsure

Unsure

No

No

No

Unsure

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Unsure

Yes

Unsure

High

Haas et al. [55]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Haas et al. [56]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Hall et al. [57]

Yes

Unsure

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Unsure

Yes

Yes

High

Jafari et al. [58]

Yes

Unsure

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Jull et al. [59]

Yes

Unsure

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Malo-Urriès et al. [60]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Nilsson et al. [61]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Sedighi et al. [62]

Unsure

Unsure

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Sharma et al. [63]

Yes

Unsure

No

No

No

Yes

Unsure

Yes

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Yes

Unsure

Unsure

von Piekartz et al. 2011 [64]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Yang and Kang [65]

Unsure

Unsure

No

No

No

No

Unsure

Yes

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Yes

Unsure

High

Youssef and Shanb [66]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Abdel et al. [67]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Dunning et al. [68]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Lerner-Lentz et al. [69]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unsure

Yes

Unsure

Moustafa et al. [70]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

  1. Studies were considered as overall low-RoB if no individual domain was rated as “high” or “unsure” RoB. Studies which scored “unsure”, but not “high”, for one or more items, were considered as overall unsure RoB, and “high” if any individual item was rated as high RoB
Back to article page

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X