| PMC full text: | Published online 2011 Jan 13. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1676-3
|
Table 1
Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria [13, 14] and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list) [15], respectively
| Risk of bias score (/11) | CHEC-list (/19)a | |
|---|---|---|
| Critchley et al. [33] | 7 | 19 (0) |
| Goossens et al. [41] | 2 | 14 (1) |
| Herman et al. [46] | 6 | 17 (1) |
| Hlobil et al. [26] | 7 | 15 (2) |
| Hollinghurst et al. [34] | 7 | 17 (1) |
| Johnson et al. [35] | 7 | 12 (1) |
| Karjalainen et al. [21, 22] | 8 | 13 (0) |
| Kominski et al. [30] | 5 | 11 (4) |
| Lamb et al. [36] | 7 | 15 (1) |
| Loisel et al. [25] | 5 | 14 (0) |
| Molde Hagen et al. [27] | 7 | 12 (1) |
| Niemisto et al. [23, 24] | 6 | 16 (0) |
| Ratcliffe et al. [37] | 5 | 19 (0) |
| Rivero-Arias et al. [38] | 8 | 18 (1) |
| Rivero-Arias et al. [39] | 5 | 18 (0) |
| Schweikert et al. [44] | 5 | 17 (1) |
| Seferlis et al. [31] | 4 | 7 (5) |
| Skouen et al. [28] | 5 | 14 (1) |
| Smeets et al. [42] | 8 | 18 (1) |
| Strong et al. [20] | 4 | 13 (1) |
| Torstensen et al. [29] | 6 | 9 (2) |
| UK BEAM Trial Team [40] | 5 | 17 (1) |
| Van der Roer et al. [43] | 6 | 18 (1) |
| Whitehurst et al. [32] | 6 | 17 (1) |
| Witt et al. [45] | 4 | 13 (1) |
aThe number of items that were not applicable from the CHEC-list is in parentheses. For example, performing an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (item 13) was not applicable for cost-minimization or cost-benefit analysis, and discounting (item 14) was not applicable for studies with a follow-up of 1 year or less