Table 2

Methodological quality of the 11 treatment groups
Article (8) TG (11) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Ahlqwist et al. [30] a 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
b 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
Clifford. [51] a 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 5
b 0 0 0.5 1 1 1 1 0 4.5
c 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4
Fanucchi et al. [31] a 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 6
Fernandes et al. [50] a 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4
Harringe et al. [47] a 0 0 1 0.833 0 0 1 0 2.833
Jones et al. [29] a 0.5 0 1 0.871 0 0 1 0 3.371
Perich et al. [49] a 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4
Thorpe et al. [48] a 0 1 0.5 0.588 0 0 1 0 3.088

TG: Treatment group; 1: Random assignment; 1: the subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions; 0.5: there was no random assignment but some method was applied to control confounding variables; 0: there was neither random assignment nor control of confounding variables. 2: Type of control group; 1: active control; 0: inactive control or no control group in the design. 3: Sample size in the posttest; 1: N ≥ 15 subjects; 0.5: 8 ≤ N < 14; 0: N < 8. 4: Attrition; this is computed as 1 – attrition in the posttest. 5: Intent-to-treat analysis; 1: present; 0: absent. 6. Evaluator blinding; 1: present; 0: absent. 7: Homogeneous assessment; 1: present; 0: absent. 8: Inter-rater reliability; 1: present; 0: absent.

Calvo-Muñoz et al.

Calvo-Muñoz et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013 14:55   doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-55

Open Data