Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of the risk of bias in RCT, non randomised controlled trials and controlled before-after studies

From: Implementation interventions to improve the management of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review

Risk of bias category

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

U

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

U

L

H

U

H

Was the allocation adequately concealed?

L

L

L

L

L

L

U

L

L

U

U

H

U

U

Were baseline outcome measurements similar?

L

U

U

L

U

L

H

L

L

H

H

L

H

H

Were baseline characteristics similar?

L

U

U

L

L

L

L

L

L

H

H

L

H

L

Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

L

L

L

L

H

H

L

H

H

L

U

H

H

H

Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during study?

L

L

L

H

L

U

U

L

L

L

U

U

U

U

Was the study adequately protected against contamination?

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

U

Was the study free from selective outcome reporting?

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

Was the study free from other risk of bias?

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

H

H

L

L

L

L

L

  1. Abbreviations: 1 – Winkens et al., [47]; 2 – Eccles et al., [24]; 3 – Kerry et al., [22]; 4 – Dey et al., [29]; 5 – Bekkering et al., [26]; 6 – Engers et al., [46]; 7 - Bishop & Wing, [28]; 8 – Bekkering et al., [45]; 9 – Engers et al., [27]; 10 – Stevenson et al., [30]; 11 - Schectman et al., [23]; 12 – McGuirk et al., [32]; 13- Becker et al., [44]; 14 – Goldberg et al., [31]; H – High risk of bias; L – Low risk of bias; U – Unclear risk of bias