Table 3.
Results of Methodological Quality Assessment
| Study | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| van Tulder et al. Quality Criterion13 | Bunketorp et al. 200615 | Crawford et al. 200416 | Rosenfeld et al. 2000,17 2003,18 200619 (triplet of studies) | Schnabel et al. 2004,20 Vassiliou et al. 200621 (pair of studies) | Söderlund et al. 200022 |
| Was the method of randomization adequate? | Y | N | Y | Y | U |
| Was the treatment allocation concealed? | Y | N | Y | Y | N |
| Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic factors? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Was the patient blinded to the intervention? | N | N | N | N | N |
| Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? | N | N | N | N | N |
| Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? | Y | N | Y | U | U |
| Were co-interventions avoided or similar? | Y | Y | Y | U | Y |
| Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? | Y | U | U | Y | Y |
| Was the dropout rate described and acceptable? | Y | N | Y | N | Y |
| Was the timing of the outcome assessment in both groups comparable? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Did the study include an intention-to-treat analysis? | Y | Y | Y | Y | U |
| Total score (/11) | 9 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
N = no (the study did not meet the criterion); U = unclear (not enough information was provided to determine whether the study did or did not meet the criterion); Y = yes (the study met the criterion)