Table 4 Quality items and scores of 12 studies included in a systematic review on spinal manipulation and pressure pain threshold
First author Year Country [ref #] | Is there a description of the random allocation? 1)Randomization method 2) Concealment | Is treatment performed by experienced person? | Is the intervention described? 1. SM 2. Sham 3. Comparison 4. Control | Is the assessment blinded? 1.Assessor/intervention 2.statistician/intervention | The sham procedure: (Yes/No/NA) 1.Naïve subjects 2. In the same position as SM? 3. Assessed Conclusion: Is the sham psychologically acceptable (1 pt), possibly acceptable (0.5 pt), not acceptable (0 pt) | If comparison between interventions are the subjects naïve? (Yes/No/NA) | Is the measurement procedure described? | Is reliability of the outcome variables reported? | Were pain readings taken more than once at each point? | After the study started, are losses and exclusions of study subjects reported or evident? | Score for sham studies | Score for comparison studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fryer 2004 Australia [21] | 1) Yes 2) No | No | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. No 2. No 3. No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Conclusion: Not acceptable | ||||||||||||
0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5/9 | 5/9 | |
Ruiz-Saez 2007 Spain [16] | 1) Yes 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) NA 4) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
Conclusion: Acceptable | ||||||||||||
0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
1 | 8/9 | NA | ||||||||||
Fernandez de las Penas 2007 Spain [19] | 1) No 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Conclusion: Acceptable | ||||||||||||
0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6,5/9 | 6.5/9 | |
Hamilton 2007 Australia [20] | 1) Yes 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. Yes 2. No 3. No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Conclusion: Possibly acceptable | ||||||||||||
0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6,5/9 | 7/9 | |
Fernandez de las Penas 2008 Spain [18] | 1) Yes 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Conclusion: Acceptable | ||||||||||||
0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
0 | 7/9 | 7/9 | ||||||||||
Thomson 2009 Sweden [13] | 1) Yes 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. No 2. No 3. No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Conclusion: Not acceptable | ||||||||||||
0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
0 | 6/9 | 6/9 | ||||||||||
Oliveira Campelo 2010 Spain [22] | 1) Yes 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) NA 3) Yes 4) Yes | 1) Yes 2) No | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
NA | 8/9 | |||||||||||
Bishop 2011 USA [24] | 1) Yes 2) No | No | 1) Yes 2) NA 3) Yes 4) Yes | 1) No 2) No | NA | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | ||
0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||||
0 | NA | 3.5/9 | ||||||||||
Yu 2012 China [15] | 1) Yes 2) No | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) NA 3) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
Conclusion: Acceptable | ||||||||||||
0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 | NA | ||
Srbely 2013 Canada [17] | 1) Yes 2) Yes | Yes | 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) NA 4) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No | NA | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | ||
No Conclusion: Acceptable | ||||||||||||
1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
1 | 1 | 7,5/9 | NA | |||||||||
Jordon 2016 USA [23] | 1) Yes 2) Yes | Yes | 1) Yes 2) NA 3) Yes 4) Yes | 1) Yes 2) No | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||
1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||
1 | NA | 7.5/9 | ||||||||||
Alonso Perez 2016 Spain [22] | 1) Yes 2) Yes | Yes | 1) Yes 2) NA 3) Yes 4) NA | 1) Yes 2) No | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
1 | NA | 8.5/9 |