Skip to main content
. 2013 Apr 9;14:129. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-129

Table 2.

Characteristics and risk of bias assessment of included trials

Author Licciardone, 2003 [21] Chown et al., 2008 [26]
Participants
N=91, 21-69yo
N=239, 18-65yo
Randomised
Yes
Yes
Blinding
Patients
Patients and Assessors
Inclusion
NSLBP for 3 months
NSLBP for 3 months
Exclusion
Red flags, neurological signs, surgery, workers comp, pregnancy, recent manipulation
Red flags, radiculopathy, surgery, anti-coagulants
Intervention detail
Senior osteopathic students
One osteopath
Choice of soft tissue, MET, Art, HVT, SCS, cranio-sacral, myofascial technique
Choice of soft tissue, MET, Art, HVT, functional, exercise, education, psychosocial, nutritional advice
Seven sessions over 5 months
Five sessions over 3 months
Follow up at 1, 3 and 6 months
Follow up 6 weeks and 12 months
Control
Sham or no treatment
Manipulative PT or group exercise
Outcome measures
SF-36, VAS, RM, ODI, satisfaction questionnaire
ODI, EuroQoL, Shuttle walk test, satisfaction questionnaire
Main results
SF-36:
(For osteopathy only)
1 month OMT >control (p=0.03)
ODI - 5.0 (95% CI 1.6 – 8.4; SD 10.5; p<0.01):
3 months Sham > OMT/control (p=0.01)
EQ-5D 0.11 (CI 0.02 to 0.19; SD 0.24; p<0.05):
6 months Sham > OMT/control (p=0.03)
Group comparison not done
VAS pain:
1 month OMT/Sham >control (p=0.01/0.003)
3 months OMT/Sham >control (p=0.001/0.001)
6 months OMT/Sham >control (p=0.02/0.02)
RM no differences
OMT less co-treatments (p=0.03)
Risk of Bias score /12 Detail of point loss
7
9
Randomisation process not fully described
Patients not blinded
Care provider not blinded
Care provider not blinded
Drop out rate not fully described
Compliance not acceptable
Co-interventions not avoided
Compliance not acceptable
Quality Issues Confounders in sham techniques, co-treatments Sample size reduced
Statistical analysis incomplete