Skip to main content

Table 3 GRADE evidence profile of the effect of aquatic physical therapy on chronic low back pain

From: Effect of aquatic physical therapy on chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Certainty assessment

number of patients

Effect

Certainty

Number of studies

Study design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

APT

No APT

Absolute (95% CI)

VAS

9

Randomized trials

serious1

not serious2

not serious3

serious4

none5

163

163

SMD:-0.68 (-0.91, -0.46)

 ⊕  ⊕ ◯◯ Low

VAS at rest

2

Randomized trials

serious1

serious6

not serious3

serious4

none5

65

66

SMD: -0.60 (-1.42, 0.23)

 ⊕ ◯◯◯ Very Low

physical components of SF-36 or SF-12

4

Randomized trials

serious1

not serious7

not serious3

serious4

none5

113

113

SMD: 0.63 (0.36, 0.90)

 ⊕  ⊕ ◯◯ Low

mental components of SF-36 or SF-12

4

Randomized trials

serious1

serious8

not serious3

serious4

none5

113

113

SMD: 0.59 (0.10, 1.08)

 ⊕ ◯◯◯ Very Low

RMDQ

4

Randomized trials

serious1

not serious9

not serious3

serious4

none5

131

131

SMD: -0.42 (-0.66, -0.17)

 ⊕  ⊕ ◯◯ Low

ODI or ODQ

7

Randomized trials

serious1

serious10

not serious3

serious4

none5

151

153

SMD: -0.54 (-1.07, -0.01)

 ⊕ ◯◯◯ Very Low

  1. VAS Visual Analogue Scale, SF-36 Quality Short-Form 36 Health Survey, SF-12 Short-Form 12, RMDQ Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, ODI Oswestry Disability Index, ODQ Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire
  2. 1We downgraded the quality of the evidence for risk of bias by one level. All included studies were at high or unclear risk of bias
  3. 2We did not downgrade for inconsistency, I2 = 41% and χ2 = 13.62, P = 0.09
  4. 3Although the studies included different types of interventions, we did not downgrade for indirectness
  5. 4We downgraded the quality of the evidence by one level because the population size was less than 400 people
  6. 5We did not downgrade publication bias, although we could not reliably assess this category due to the small number of eligible studies
  7. 6We did downgrade for inconsistency, I2 = 82% and χ2 = 5.47, P = 0.02
  8. 7We did not downgrade for inconsistency, I2 = 9% and χ2 = 3.29, P = 0.35
  9. 8We did downgrade for inconsistency, I2 = 69% and χ2 = 9.77, P = 0.02
  10. 9We did not downgrade for inconsistency, I2 = 0% and χ2 = 2.93, P = 0.40
  11. 10We did downgrade for inconsistency, I2 = 79% and χ2 = 29.00, P < 0.0001