Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological quality assessment of included studies

From: Head kinematics in patients with neck pain compared to asymptomatic controls: a systematic review

Publication

Research question or objective clearly stated

Selection

Method

Statistics

Score

RoB

Population clearly specified and defined

Participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%

All subjects recruited from similar population

Eligibility criteria pre-specifieda

Potentially confounding co-morbidities excluded

Sample size justification provided

Exposure measures clearly defined, valid, reliable a

Outcome measure clearly defined, valid, reliable a

Exposure measured at day of outcome assessment

Different levels of exposure examined

Statistician blinded to exposure status of participants

Key

potential confounding variables adjusted statistically

Appropriate descriptive statistics presented

Total

Overall risk

Baydal-Bertomeu et al. [57]

✓

X

NR

X

X

X

✓

✓

X

NR

X

NR

✓

✓

7

moderate

Descarreaux

et al. [58]

✓

X

NR

X

X

X

X

✓

X

X

X

NR

X

✓

4

moderate

De Zoete et al. [59]

✓

✓

NR

✓

✓

X

✓

✓

✓

x

✓

NR

✓

✓

14

low

Ernst et al. [60]

✓

✓

NR

X

✓

✓

X

✓

✓

✓

X

NR

✓

✓

15

low

Gadotti et al. [61]

✓

X

NR

x

✓

✓

x

✓

X

NR

x

NR

X

X

7

moderate

Grip et al. [62]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

✓

✓

✓

NR

X

✓

11

moderate

Hage et al. [63]

✓

x

NR

x

✓

x

x

✓

X

NR

X

NR

X

X

5

high

Kristjansson et al. [64]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

x

✓

✓

NR

X

NR

X

✓

8

moderate

Kristjansson & Oddsdottir [65]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

✓

X

✓

NR

✓

✓

11

moderate

Lemmers et al. [66]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

x

✓

✓

NR

X

NR

✓

✓

10

moderate

Meisingset

et al. [67]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

X

✓

✓

NR

✓

✓

11

moderate

Oddsdottir et al. [68]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

✓

X

✓

NR

✓

✓

11

moderate

Ohberg et al. [69]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

✓

NR

X

NR

X

✓

8

moderate

Osterbauer et al. [70]

✓

X

NR

X

X

X

X

✓

✓

NR

X

X

X

✓

6

high

Röijezon et al. [71]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

✓

X

X

✓

✓

✓

NR

X

✓

11

moderate

Rutledge et al. [72]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

X

✓

X

NR

✓

✓

10

moderate

Sarig Bahat

et al. 2010 [73]

✓

X

NR

X

X

X

X

✓

X

✓

X

NR

X

✓

6

high

Sarig Bahat

et al. 2015 [74]

✓

X

NR

X

X

X

X

✓

X

✓

X

NR

✓

✓

8

moderate

Sarig Bahat et al. 2020 [75]

✓

X

NR

NR

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

X

NR

✓

✓

15

low

Sjölander et al. [76]

✓

X

✓

X

✓

✓

X

✓

✓

X

X

NR

✓

✓

13

moderate

Takasaki et al. [77]

✓

X

✓

X

x

X

X

✓

X

X

X

NR

✓

✓

7

moderate

Tsang et al. 2013 [78]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

✓

X

✓

✓

NR

✓

NR

✓

✓

13

moderate

Tsang et al. 2014 [79]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

✓

X

✓

✓

NR

X

NR

✓

X

11

moderate

Vikne et al. [80]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

✓

✓

✓

NR

✓

✓

13

moderate

Woodhouse

et al. [81]

✓

X

NR

X

X

X

X

✓

✓

✓

✓

NR

✓

✓

11

moderate

Yang et al. [82]

✓

X

NR

X

✓

X

X

✓

X

X

X

NR

X

✓

6

high

Zhou et al. [83]

✓

x

NR

x

✓

x

x

X

x

NR

x

NR

x

✓

4

high

  1. Rating: ✓ = Yes; x = No; NR = Not reported; RoB = Risk of Bias
  2. a implemented consistently across all study participants
  3. Items in bold: have been weighted as being more crucial in assessing ROB and have therefore been counted twice
  4. Total risk of bias: interpreted as low for score > 13, moderate for 7–13 and high for < 7 points