Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 8 Methodological assessment of included studies

From: Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study A. Study participation B. Study attrition C. Prognostic factor measurement D. Outcome measurement E. Study confounding F. Statistical analysis and reporting Overall assessment of risk of biasa
Beneciuk et al. 2012 [43] Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low
Field & Newell 2012 [44] Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low
Gabel et al. 2011 [39] Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Low
Grotle et al. 2006 [25] Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low
Hazard et al. 1996 [49] Moderate Low Low Low Low Moderate Low
Hazard et al. 1997 [50] Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low
Heneweer et al. 2007 [66] Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low
Hill et al. 2008 [46] Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low
Jellema et al. 2007 [52] Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low
Kongsted et al. 2015 [38] Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Law et al. 2013 [37] Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low
Newell et al. 2014 [45] Low High Moderate Low Low Low High
Nonclercq et al. 2010 [42] Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low
Shaw et al. 2009 [40] Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Schmidt et al. 2016 [48] Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low
Truchon et al. 2012 [51] Moderate High Low Moderate Low Moderate High
Turner et al. 2013 [61] Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low
Williams et al. 2014 [41] Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
  1. aThe overall assessment of risk of bias for a study was rated as ‘low’ when all or most (4–6) of the six bias domains were fulfilled, with each domain rated as ‘low’ or ‘moderate’. The overall risk of bias was rated as ‘high’ when one or more of the six bias domains were rated as ‘high’ or ‘unclear’. Studies with low overall risk of bias were considered high quality