Table 3.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) level of quality assessment. The table presents a detailed summary of the evidence, including statistical model (mean difference and associated confidence intervals (CI)), regression data, tests of homogeneity, publication bias (Begg’s test), and the certainty of the evidence.
| Outcome | Test | Statistical Model | Homogeneity | Begg’s P | Level of Quality | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD/r | 95% CI | p Value | p Value | I2 (%) | ||||
| NPS | Meta-analysis | −3.49 | −3.86, −3.12 a | - | 0.000 ***,b | 95.1 c | 1.000 | L 1,2,3 |
| Sensitivity analysis | - | |||||||
| Publication date | - | −0.68, 1.06 | - | 94.8 | - | |||
| Follow-up period | −0.24, 0.86 | 76.1 | ||||||
| Number of patients | −0.19, 0.20 | 96.7 | ||||||
| Meta-regression with BMI | - | |||||||
| VAS | Meta-analysis | −3.75 | −4.13, −3.37 a | - | 0.000 ***,b | 85 c | 0.12 | L 1,2,3 |
| Sensitivity analysis | - | - | ||||||
| Publication date | - | −2.46, 1.68 | - | 60.8 | - | |||
| Follow-up period | −3.52, 3.97 | 90 | ||||||
| Number of patients | −3.14, 3.29 | 92.4 | ||||||
| Meta-regression with BMI | 1.87 | −1.83, 5.57 | 0.162 | - | ||||
| ODI | Meta-analysis | −11.44 | −14.84, −8.03 a | - | 0.008 **,b | 85.7 c | 1.000 | M 1,2,3 |
| Sensitivity analysis | ||||||||
| Publication date | - | |||||||
| Follow-up period | ||||||||
| Number of patients | ||||||||
| Meta-regression with BMI | ||||||||
Pre-op, preoperative; post-op, post-operative; CI, confidence intervals; MD, mean difference; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; NPS, Numeric Rating Pain Scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index. a 95% CI including 0 means no statistical significance, while not including 1 means have statistical significance; b p < 0.05 indicated significance; c I2 > 50% implied heterogeneity. Quality of evidence: H = high, M = moderate, L = low, VL = very low. Significant difference, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. 1—rated down for risk of bias; 2—rated down for inconsistency; 3—rated up for large magnitude of effect (strong evidence of association—significant relative risk of >2 (<0.5) based on consistent evidence from two or more observational studies, with no plausible confounders (+1); very strong evidence of association—significant relative risk of >5 (<0.2) based on direct evidence with no major threats to validity (+2)).