Skip to main content
Fig. 1 | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Fig. 1

From: Identification of subgroup effect with an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three different types of therapist-delivered care in low back pain

Fig. 1

One-step meta-analysis: Estimated difference between control (non-active usual care and sham) and all intervention treatments for each outcome with its 95% confidence intervals adjusted by its baseline value for short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Abbreviations: m, number of trials; nC, number of participants in the control arm; nI, number of participants in the intervention arm; short-, mid- and long-term follow-up, measurements taken 2 and 3 months, at 6 months and 12 months post randomisation or entry to the trial, respectively; FFbHR, Hannover functional ability questionnaire for measuring back-pain related functional limitations; RMDQ, Roland Morris disability questionnaire; PCS, physical component scale of SF-12/36; MCS, mental component scale of SF-12/36. a The original scale was rescaled from 0 to 100 for graphical representation purposes only. In order to obtain the estimated difference and its 95% confidence interval in its original scale, the value from graph is multiplied by (maximum value/100). For example, the estimated difference for RMDQ at short-term follow-up was 5.47*24/100 = 1.31. b One of the following instruments from each trial, where available, was chosen (in descending order): 1. individual VAS on average pain today. 2. average pain over the past 1 week. 3. average pain over the past 2 weeks, average pain over the past 1 month 4. average pain over the past 3 months. 5. the individual item of the CPG pain intensity score (CPG-PS) that is equivalent to the VAS if it is available. 6. the summary score of the CPG-PS or 7. the bodily pain domain of SF-12/36

Back to article page