Table 5.
Meta-analysis: Quality of outcome assessment summary
| Studies | Quality assessment | Patients, n | Effecta | Quality | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation of study design | Inconsistency | Imprecision | Indirectness | Reporting Bias | Intervention Group | Comparator Group | SMDb (95% CI) | ||
| Most Conservativeh |
Serious riskc | No serious inconsistencyd | Serious imprecisione | Trial context similarf |
Undetectedg | 159 | 178 | −0.1 (−0.3 to −0.2) | Low quality |
| Least Conservativeh |
Serious riskc | No serious inconsistencyd | Serious imprecisione | Trial context similarf |
Detectedg | 159 | 178 | −0.8 (−1.1 to −0.5) | Very low quality |
aPositive values favour the intervention group
bThe SMD of the intervention group compared to the comparator group
cMore than 25% of the participants from studies with low methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score < 7 points)
d25% of more of trials don’t have findings in the same direction
eFewer than 400 participants for each outcome
fTrial context is not exactly the same as the review question
g Inspection of funnel plot asymmetry
hmeta-analysis studies included (n = 9)