Table 2

Methodological quality of controlled trials of Harpagophytum procumbens

Methodological Quality Criteria

Gobel et al, 2001

Schmelz et al, 1999

Guyader, 1984

Chrubasik et al, 1996

Chrubasik et al, 1997

Chrubasik et al, 1999

Chrubasik et al, 2003

Chantre et al, 2000

Frerick et al, 2001

Lecomte & Costa, 1992

Biller et al, 2002

Schruffer, 1980


A Were eligibility criteria specified?

n

n

n

y

y

y

y

y

y

n

y

n

B Was randomization appropriate?

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

C Was treatment allocation concealed?

y

y

y

y

n

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

E Were groups similar at baseline regarding important prognostic indicators?

dk

dk

n

y

y

y

y

y

n

dk

dk

dk

F Were outcome measure(s) and the control interventions explicitly described?

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

G Were co-interventions avoided or comparable?

dk

dk

dk

y

y

y

y

y

y

dk

y

y

H Were the outcome measures relevant?

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

n

y

n

y

I Were adverse events described?

y

dk

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

n

y

J Were drop-outs described?

n

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

n

dk

n

y

K Was the sample size based on a priori power calculation?

n

n

n

y

n

y

n

y

n

n

n

n

L1 Did the study include intention-to-treat analysis? and/or

n

y

n

n

y

y

y

y

n

y

n

y

N Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the POM?

y

n

n

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

n

n

O Was the timing of outcomes appropriate?

y

y

n

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

y

Y

Total

7

7

6

12

11

13

12

13

8

8

6

9


Gagnier et al. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2004 4:13   doi:10.1186/1472-6882-4-13

Open Data