Table 2.
Criteria for risk of bias assessment for the trials included (n=13) in the systematic review (Furlan et al. 2009). If ≥ 6 criteria were met, the trial is assessed to have low risk of bias
| Author, year, country | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trials | |||||||||||||
| Hoofwijk 1988 Netherlands | Yes | Unclear | NA | NA | NA | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | 6 |
| COTS 2007 Canada | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NA | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
| Shen 2008 China | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
| Judd 2009 United States | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NA | No | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| Smekal 2009, 2011 Austria a | No | Unclear | NA | NA | NA | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 5 |
| Ferran 2010 United Kingdom | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NA | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | 7 |
| Controlled clinical trials | |||||||||||||
| Jubel 2005 Germany | No | No | NA | NA | NA | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 |
| Lee 2007 Taiwan | No | No | NA | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | 6 |
| Lee 2008 Taiwan | No | No | NA | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| Pai 2009 Taiwan | No | No | No | NA | NA | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 |
| Hsu 2010 Taiwan | No | No | NA | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| Böhme 2011 Germany | No | No | NA | NA | NA | No | Unclear | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | 3 |
| Kulshrestha 2011 India | No | No | No | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
1. Was the method of randomisation 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 (CCT: allocated) participants analysed in the group they were allocated?
8. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
9. Were the groups similar at baseline 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?
a Studies are assessed to originate from the same patient population. Results are reported from the recent (2011) study.
Abbreviations:
NA = Not applicable
COTS = Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society