10.08.2013 Views

Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE

Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE

Non-specific neck pain: diagnosis and treatment - KCE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

38 <strong>Non</strong>-Specific Neck Pain: <strong>diagnosis</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>treatment</strong> <strong>KCE</strong> Reports 119<br />

QUALITY APPRAISAL: RCTS ON TREATMENT<br />

Author (y) Questions (Dutch Cochrane for RCT’s instrument) TOTAL/<br />

9<br />

Medium/High<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9<br />

Helewa, 2007 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

O’Leary, 2007 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Ylinen, 2007 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Clel<strong>and</strong>, 2007 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Hakkinen, 2008 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Hakkinen, 2007 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Itoh, 2007 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Vas, 2006 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Willich, 2006 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 M<br />

Ma, 2008 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 M<br />

Bernaards, 2008 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Voerman, 2007 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 M<br />

Brockow, 2001<br />

For all questions 1=yes<br />

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 H<br />

Questions: 1. Is the r<strong>and</strong>omisation well performed? 2. Was there an allocation concealment? 3. Were the<br />

patients blinded for <strong>treatment</strong>? 4. Were the administrators blinded for <strong>treatment</strong>? 5. Was there a blinding<br />

of outcome assessment? 6. Was there similarity of groups at the start of the study? 7. Was the description<br />

of losses to follow up/withdrawals available? 8. Was the intention-to-treat reported? 9. Were the groups<br />

equally provided of care? Note: Publications with a score < 4 were excluded.<br />

QUALITY APPRAISAL: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS<br />

Author (y) Questions (Dutch Cochrane for SR instrument) TOTAL/<br />

8<br />

Medium/High<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8<br />

Borghouts, 1998 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Chow, 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Ezzo, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Gemmell, 2006 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Graham, 2006 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 M<br />

Gross, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Gross, 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Gross, 2002 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 M<br />

Gross, 2004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Haines, 2008 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Haraldsson, 2006 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 H<br />

Hurwitz, 2008 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Karjalainen, 2003 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 M<br />

Kay, 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 M<br />

Kroeling, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Macauly, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 H<br />

Peloso, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Sarig-Bahat, 2003 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 M<br />

Saragiovannis, 2005 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 H<br />

Shields, 2006 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 H<br />

Trinh, 2006 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Vernon, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 H<br />

Vernon, 2005 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 M<br />

Vernon, 2007(b)<br />

For all questions 1=yes<br />

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 M<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? 8. Is the statistical<br />

pooling correctly performed? Note: Publications with a score < 4 were excluded.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!