Table 3. .
Item |
Hale et al24 (2007) |
McKeon et al28 (2008) |
Beazell et al17 (2012) |
Hilgendorf et al25 (2012) |
Hoch et al26 (2012) |
Schaefer and Sandrey30 (2012) |
Gilbreath et al22 (2014) |
Collins et al18 (2014) |
Hale et al23 (2014) |
Kim et al27 (2014) |
Cruz-Díaz et al19 (2015) |
Cruz-Díaz et al20 (2015) |
De Ridder et al21 (2015) |
Salom-Moreno et al29 (2015) |
McKeon and Wikstrom31 (2016) |
1. Random allocation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
2. Allocation concealed | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
3. Similar at baseline | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
4. Blinding of all subjects | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
5. Blinding of all therapists | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
6. Blinding of all assessors | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
7. More than 85% of follow-up | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
8. Intention to treat | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
9. Between-groups statistical comparison | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
10. Point measures and variability | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
11. Eligibility criteria indicated | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Yes, No. (%)a | 5 (50) | 5 (50) | 6 (60) | 6 (60) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 7 (70) | 3 (30) | 4 (40) | 8 (80) | 8 (80) | 1 (10) | 7 (70) | 7 (70) |
Level of evidence | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Scores are based on items 1 through 10.