| PMC full text: | Published online 2012 Oct 29. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2553-z
|
Table 2
Overview risk of bias for studies on the effect of surgery compared to conservative care for neck pain
| Items | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Total |
| Birnbaum [12] | – | – | – | – | – | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | ? | 1 |
| Cesaroni and Nardi (RCT) [16] | + | + | – | ? | – | + | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | 7 |
| Lofgren [13] | – | – | – | – | – | ? | + | + | ? | ? | + | ? | 3 |
| Mayer [14] | – | – | – | – | – | + | ? | – | ? | ? | + | ? | 2 |
| Persson [15] (RCT) | + | ? | – | – | – | + | ? | – | ? | ? | + | ? | 3 |
| Heffez [19] | – | – | – | – | – | ? | + | + | ? | ? | + | ? | 3 |
| Kadanka [18,21] (RCT) | + | ? | – | – | – | ? | – | + | ? | + | + | ? | 4 |
| Matsunaga [20] | – | – | – | – | – | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 1 |
| Nardi et al. [17] | ? | ? | – | – | – | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 1 |
+ yes (low risk of bias), − no (high risk of bias), ? unclear
Criteria items: 1, Was the method of randomization adequate?; 2, Was the treatment allocation concealed?; 3, Was the patient blinded to the intervention?; 4, Was the care provider blinded to the intervention?; 5, Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention?; 6, Was the drop-out rate described and acceptable?; 7, Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were allocated?; 8, Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators?; 9, Were co-interventions avoided or similar?; 10, Was the compliance acceptable in all groups?; 11, Was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups?; 12, Selective outcome reporting?