Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological quality of studies on the effectiveness of treatment provided by physiotherapists in advanced practice physiotherapy rolesphysiotherapy and physicians

From: Advanced practice physiotherapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review

Study

Taylor et al. 2010

Richardson et al. 2005

Daker-White et al. 1999

Sephton et al. 2010

McClellan et al. 2006

Hockinet al. 1994

Ballet al. 2007

Item Evaluation Criteria

       

(maximum = 2; minimum = 0)*

 1. Relevant background cited to establish a foundation for research question

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

 2. Comparison group used

2

2

2

0

1

0

1

 3. Patient status considered at more than one time point

0

2

2

2

2

1

0

 4. Data collection performed prospectively

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

 5. Randomization

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

 6. Patients blinding

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

 7. Treatment providers blinding

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

 8. Independent evaluator of outcome measures

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

 9. Sampling procedures minimized biases

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

 10. Inclusion/exclusion criteria well-defined

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

 11. Enrolment obtained to attain adequate statistical power

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

 12. Appropriate retention/follow-up (>90% = 2, >70% = 1, ≤ 70% = 0)

N/A

1

1

0

0

0

N/A

 13. Intervention applied according to established principles

2

1

1

1

1

1

0

 14. Biases due to the treatment provider minimized

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

 15. Intervention compared to an appropriate comparator

2

2

2

0

1

0

1

 16. Appropriate validated primary outcome

2

1

0

1

1

1

0

 17. Appropriate validated secondary outcomes

2

2

2

2

2

0

1

 18. Appropriate follow-up

N/A

2

2

2

2

1

0

 19. Appropriate statistical testing

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

 20. Adequate power to identify treatment effects

2

1

1

1

0

1

0

 21. Size and significance of treatment effect reported

2

2

2

2

1

1

0

 22. Missing data accounted for and considered in analyses

1

2

0

2

0

0

0

 23. Clinical and practical significance considered in interpretation of results

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

 24. Conclusions and recommendations supported by the study objectives, analysis and results

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

Total score (%)

81%

73%

73%

63%

52%

38%

25%

Rank

1

2

2

3

4

5

6

  1. *2 indicates that criterion was fulfilled, 1 indicates that criterion was partially fulfilled and 0 indicates that criterion was not fulfilled or not reported.
  2. N/A = not applicable to paper. Scores obtained after consensus.
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us