Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE
Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE
Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>KCE</strong> Reports 119 <strong>Non</strong>-Specific Neck Pain: <strong>diagnosis</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>treatment</strong> 37<br />
APPENDIX 2: CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS THE<br />
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF THE STUDIES:<br />
RESULTS OF THE QUALITY APPRAISAL<br />
QUALITY APPRAISAL: PAPERS ON DIAGNOSIS<br />
Author (y) Questions (Quadas for <strong>diagnosis</strong> instrument) TOTAL Medium/High<br />
/14<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14<br />
Björkstén, 1999 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 12 H<br />
De Hertogh, 2007 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10 H<br />
Vos, 2009 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 10 H<br />
For all questions 1=yes<br />
Questions: 1. Was the spectrum of patients representative of the patients who will receive the test in<br />
practice? 2. Were selection criteria clearly described? 3. Is the reference st<strong>and</strong>ard likely to correctly<br />
classify the target condition? 4. Is the time period between reference st<strong>and</strong>ard <strong>and</strong> index test short enough<br />
to be reasonably sure that the target condition did not change between the two tests? 5. Did the whole<br />
sample or a r<strong>and</strong>om selection of the sample, receive verification using a reference st<strong>and</strong>ard of <strong>diagnosis</strong>? 6.<br />
Did patients receive the same reference st<strong>and</strong>ard regardless of the index test result? 7. Was the reference<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ard independent of the index test (i.e. the index test did not form part of the reference st<strong>and</strong>ard)? 8.<br />
Was the execution of the index test described in sufficient detail to permit replication of the test? 9. Was<br />
the execution of the reference st<strong>and</strong>ard described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? 10. Were<br />
the index results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference st<strong>and</strong>ard? 11. Were the<br />
reference st<strong>and</strong>ard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test? 12. Were the<br />
same clinical data available when test results were interpreted as would be available when the test is used<br />
in practice? 13. Were uninterpretable/intermediate test results reported? 14. Were withdrawals from the<br />
study explained? Note: Publications with a score < 7 were excluded.<br />
Author (y) Questions (Dutch Cochrane for <strong>diagnosis</strong> instrument) Total/7 Medium/High<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7<br />
Rubinstein, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />
Rubinstein, 2008 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 M<br />
Sehgal, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 H<br />
For all questions 1=yes<br />
Questions: 1. Is the question adequately formulated? 2. Is search strategy adequately performed? 3. Is the<br />
selection procedure of the publications adequately performed? 4. Is the quality appraisal adequately<br />
performed? 5. Is the description of the data-extraction adequately performed? 6. Is the description of the<br />
study baseline characteristics adequate? 7. Is the meta-analysis correctly performed? Note: Publications<br />
with a score < 4 were excluded.