Skip to main content
. 2004 Apr 19;2004(2):CD003009. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003009.pub2

Kovacs 2002.

Methods Cluster randomisation (21 voluntary GPs were randomised). Each doctor recruited a median of 2.5 (Control) and 3 patients (NRT group) (range 1 to 14).
Participants 104 adult patients (28 to 61) presenting an episode of LBP lasting at least 14 days in spite of conventional treatment were consecutively recruited from primary care consultations in Palma de Mallorca (Spain). 
 Intensity of pain and duration of current episode were higher in the NRT group while length of time on sick leave before inclusion was slightly higher in the control group. Median duration of the current episode of LBP = 17.5 days (Control) and 48.13 (NRT group). About 90% in the NRT group and 82% in the control group had experienced one or more previous episodes.
Interventions Patients in the treatment group received NRT intervention (mean number of procedures 1.44) in addition to the standard care for LBP in the primary care setting. Patients in the control group received the so‐called standard protocol for LBP.
Outcomes 1) Measures of change with respect the baseline (Day 60‐Day 0): 
 a) Pain relief (local and referred), b) Disability, c) Quality of life, and d) Side effects. 2) Measures at the end of 1‐year follow‐up period: a) number of days off work, b) consumption of resources.
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation? Low risk  
Allocation concealment? High risk As physicians in this study were randomized not to treat with A versus B, but to refer patients or not to refer patients to a specialized unit on Neuroreflexotherapy, we believe that in this particular case the risk of selection bias was low.
Blinding? 
 All outcomes ‐ patients? High risk not applicable
Blinding? 
 All outcomes ‐ providers? High risk not applicable
Blinding? 
 All outcomes ‐ outcome assessors? High risk not applicable
Incomplete outcome data addressed? 
 All outcomes ‐ drop‐outs? High risk  
Similarity of baseline characteristics? High risk  
Co‐interventions avoided or similar? Low risk Patients were allowed to continue pretrial meds if needed
Compliance acceptable? Unclear risk Unclear from text
Timing outcome assessments similar? Low risk