Table 2.
Risk of bias table
| Author, Year | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 | 2.11a | 2.12a | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 3.5 | Overall Ax |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goertz 2016 [81] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
SMT: 0% Sham: 1/27 = 4% |
Y | N/A | Y |
High Quality (++) |
| Hondras 1999 [37] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
SMT: 2/69 = 3% Sham: 1/69 = 1% |
Y | N/A | Y |
High Quality (++) |
| Balon 1998 [84] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
SMT: 7/45 = 16% Sham: 4/46 = 9% |
CS | CS | Y |
High Quality (++) |
| Olafsdottir 2001 [87] | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
SMT: 1/46 = 2% No SMT: 4/40 = 10% |
Y | N/A | Y |
Acceptable (+) |
| Ward 2015 [80] | Y | N | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
SMT: 0% No contact control: 0% |
Y | N/A | Y |
Acceptable (+) |
| Chaibi 2017 [82] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
SMT: 8/35 = 23% Sham: 9/35 = 26% Usual pharmacological care: 14/34 = 41% |
N | N/A | Y |
Overall Acceptable (+) SMT vs. Control Low Quality (−) |
| Miller 2012 [89] | Y | N | Y | Y | CS | CS | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
Not blinded SMT: 7/33 = 21.2%b Blinded SMT: 5/35 = 14.3%b No SMT: 12/34 = 35.3% |
CS | N/A | N |
Low Quality (−) |
| Molins-Cubero 2014 [79] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
SMT: 0% Sham: 0% |
Y | N/A | N |
Low Quality (−) |
| Wiberg 1999 [85] | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
SMT: 0% Advice: 9/25 = 36% |
CS | N/A | N |
Low Quality (−) |
| Qu 2012 [90] | Y | Y | CS | CS | N | CS | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
SMT: 0% Medication: 0% |
Y | N/A | Y |
Unacceptable (0) |
| Bakris 2007 [88] | N | N | Y | CS | CS | CS | Y | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
SMT: 0/25 = 0% Sham: 1/25 = 4% |
Y | N/A | Y |
Unacceptable (0) |
| Tuchin 2000 [86] | Y | Y | N | N | N | CS | Y | Y | N | CS | CS | Y |
SMT: max 4c De-tuned IFT: max 4c |
CS | N/A | N |
Unacceptable (0) |
| Kokjohn 1992 [83] | Y | Y | CS | N | CS | CS | CS | Y | Y | CS | Y | Y |
SMT: 1/24 = 4.2% Sham: 0/21 = 0% |
Y | N/A | Y |
Unacceptable (0) |
| Parker 1978 [78] | Y | Y | CS | N | N | CS | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
SMT: at least 2/85 = 2.4%c Mob: max 4/85 = 4.7%c |
Y | CS | N |
Unacceptable (0) |
CS: can’t say; N: no; N/A: not applicable; Y: yes; ++: high quality; +: acceptable quality; −: low quality; 0: unacceptable quality/rejected
IFT interferential therapy, Mob mobilization
2.1 Research Question
2.2 Definition of non-MSK condition
2.3 Randomization
2.4 Concealment
2.5 Participant blinding
2.6 Investigator blinding
2.7 Groups are similar at start of trial
2.8 Description of manipulation intervention
2.9 Description of control intervention
2.10 Only difference between groups is the treatment
2.11 Reliability of outcome
2.12 Validity of outcome
2.13 Drop-out percentage
2.14 Subject analysis/Intention-to-treat
2.15 Comparable sites (if multiple)
3.5 Appropriate analysis
aRisk of bias table addresses primary outcome measures
bParticipants were discharged but criteria for discharge were not outlined
cDid not outline which groups the drop-outs belonged to