Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological Quality Scoring1 for all studies

From: Prognostic factors in non-surgically treated sciatica: A systematic review

   Study
  Checklist item 1.[12] 2.[13] 3.[14] 4.[15] 5.[16] 6.[17] 7.[19] 8.[18]
1 Is there a rationale for the study? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Is a clear study objective/goal defined? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Are key elements of study design described (e.g. how were participants identified/recruited) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 Are the setting and selection criteria for the study population described? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 Is the follow-up period appropriate? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6 Are there any strategies to avoid loss to follow-up, or address missing data? No No No No Yes No No No
7 Is the sample size justified? No No No No No No No No
8 Is information presented about the measurement instruments used to measure the prognostic variable(s)
and does this enable replication (through the use of standardised or valid measures)?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
9 Is the outcome selected and assessed appropriately? Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes
10 Are the study sample described (demographic/clinical characteristics)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
11 Is the final sample representative of the study's target population? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
12 Is loss to follow-up ≤ 20%? (If not, are there any significant differences between responders
and non-responders to follow-up on baseline variables? If yes, have the implications been considered?)
Yes Yes No 28% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
13 Are the main results reported (including prevalence of prognostic indicator(s) & outcome, strength of association,
and statistical significance)?
Yes Not fully Not fully Not fully Yes Not fully Yes Yes
14 Is the statistical analysis appropriate and described? Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
15 Were potential confounders and effect modifiers identified and accounted for (e.g. multivariate analysis)? Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
16 Do the findings support the authors' interpretations? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
17 Do the authors discuss study limitations (e.g. biases/generalisability)? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
  Total Score 15 12 12 12 16 8 15 14
  1. Scoring: Total number of yes answers gives overall score
  2. 0-10 = poor quality 11-14 = adequate quality 15-17 = high quality
  3. 1 Based on a draft developed by a consensus group who met at the International Forum IX for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, in October 2007.