Table 2.
Risk of Bias Table (Cochrane Back Review Group, 2009)
Was the Method of Randomization Adequate? | Was the Treatment Allocation Concealment Successful? | Was the Patient Blinded to the Intervention? | Was the Care Provider Blinded to the Intervention? | Was the Outcome Assessor Blinded to the Intervention? | Was the Dropout Rate Described and Acceptable? | Were All Randomized Participants Analyzed in the Group to Which They Were Allocated? | Are Reports of the Study Free of Suggestion of Selective Outcome Reporting? | Were the Groups Similar at Baseline Regarding the Most Important Prognostic Factors? | Were Co-Interventions Avoided or Similar? | Was the Compliance Acceptable in All Groups? | Was the Timing of the Outcome Assessment Similar in All Groups? | Total Score (Scores Greater Than 6 Are Considered Low RoB) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Waagen 198633 | ? | ? | Yes | No | Yesa | No | No | Yes | Yes | Nof | No (66%)j | Yes | 5 |
Hadler 198745 | ? | ? | Yes | No | Yesa | Yesb | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (95%)j | Yes | 8 |
Triano 199535 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yesa | No | No | Yes | Yesh | Yes | Yes (81%)j | Yes | 9 |
Hoiiris 200446 | Yes | ? | Noi | Noc | Noa, i | Yes | No | Yes | Yesd | Yese | Yes (79/82%)k | Yes | 7 |
Ghroubi 200749 | Yes | ? | Yes | No | Yesa | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (100%)j | Yes | 10 |
Kawchuk 200948 | ? | ? | Yes | No | Yesa | Yesg | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes (100%)j | Yes | 8 |
Senna 201144 | Yes | ? | Yes | No | Yesa | No (described but unacceptable) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (94%) | Yes | 8 |
Von Heymann 201350 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yesa | No | No | ? | Yes | Yes | No (75%) | Yes | 7 |
Bialosky 201447 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (100%) | Yes | 10 |
Outcome assessor is participant when rating self-report scales like the VAS, RMLBPDQ, or OLBPDQ.
< 10%; yes = 1, no = 0, ? = unclear.
Although authors claim the chiropractor was blinded, this would be impossible.
Between the intervention and sham.
Both also received placebo medicine.
Soft tissue performed in sham group only.
No dropouts.
Some analysis of height and weight.
Blinding of participant was tested, and perception of true chiropractic care was significantly higher in chiropractic group (P < .05).
The authors did not report compliance directly, so we have inferred compliance from people completing the treatment program.
Based on medication logs or kits, respectively.