Skip to main content

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