Skip to main content

Table 3 Evaluation of trial quality

From: Effectiveness of dry needling and injections of myofascial trigger points associated with plantar heel pain: a systematic review

Quality Index items Imamura et al. (1998) Tillu and Gupta (1998) Perez Millan and Foster (2001)
Reporting    
1. Study hypothesis/aim/objective 1 1 1
2. Main outcomes 1 1 1
3. Characteristics of the participants 0 0 0
4. Interventions of interest 0 1 0
5. Distributions of principal confounders in each group 0 0 0
6. Main findings 0 1 1
7. Estimates of random variability for main outcomes 1 0 1
8. All the important adverse events that may be a consequence of intervention 0 0 0
9. Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up 0 1 1
10. Actual probability values for main outcomes 0 1 0
External validity    
11. Were subjects who were asked to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 1 1 0
12. Were subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0 0 0
13. Were the staff, places, and facilities representative of the treatment the majority of subjects received? 1 0 1
Internal validity (bias)    
14. Was an attempt made to blind subjects to the intervention they received? 0 0 0
15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring main outcomes of the intervention? 0 0 0
16. If any of the results of the study were based on"data dredging", was this made clear? 0 1 1
17. Do analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up? 0 1 1
18. Were appropriate statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes? 1 1 1
19. Was compliance with the intervention reliable? 1 1 1
20. Were main outcome measures reliable and valid? 0 0 0
Internal validity (selection bias)    
21. Were patients in different intervention groups recruited from the same population? 0 0 0
22. Were subjects in different intervention groups recruited over the same period of time? 0 0 0
23. Were subjects randomized to intervention groups? 0 0 0
24. Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? 0 0 0
* 25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which main findings were drawn? x x x
26. Were losses of subjects to follow-up taken into account? 0 1 1
Power    
* 27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability for a difference due to chance was less than 5%? x x x
Total score (/27) 7 12 11
  1. Instructions for use
  2. For Q 1-9 one point is allocated for Yes and zero points for No.
  3. For Q 5 two points are allocated for Yes, one point for Partially and zero points for No.
  4. For Q 10 two points are allocated for Yes, one point for Partially and zero points for No.
  5. For Q 11-27 one point is allocated for Yes, zero points for No and zero points for Unable to Determine.
  6. * Item removed.