Table 2

Methodological quality: relevant individual studies from Cochrane reviews

Subject Cochrane reviewAuthorsMethodological quality
Oral steroidsBinder et al154A/7 items: 57%High
Blockey et al166A/7 items: 86%High
Buchbinder et al177A/7 items: 100%High
Kessel et al184A/7 items: 57%High
Widiastuti-Samekto and Sianturi193A/7 items: 43%Low
Corticosteroid injectionsde Jong et al254A/5 items: 80%High
van der Windt et al334A/5 items: 80%High
Rizk et al263A/5 items: 60%High
White and Tuite273A/5 items: 60%High
Jacobs et al342A/5 items: 40%Low
Bulgen et al301A/5 items: 20%Low
Dacre et al312A/5 items: 40%Low
Gam et al352A/5 items: 40%Low
Lee et al280A/5 items: 0%Low
Richardson212A/5 items: 40%Low
Arslan and Celiker321A/5 items: 20%Low
Kivimäki et al50A/5 items: 0%Low
Williams et al290A/5 items: 0%Low
AcupunctureSun et al486A/11 items: 55%High
Lin et al494A/11 items: 36%Low
Yuan504A/11 items: 36%Low
PhysiotherapyTaverna et al386A/11 items: 55%High
Saunders399A/11 items: 82%High
Nicholson416A/11 items: 55%High
van der Windt et al339A/11 items: 82%High
Bulgen et al303A/11 items: 27%Low
Dacre et al315A/11 items: 45%Low
Lee et al284A/11 items: 36%Low
Arthrographic distensionBuchbinder et al525A/6 items: 83%High
Corbeil et al532A/6 items: 30%Low
Gam et al352A/6 items: 30%Low
Jacobs et al341A/6 items: 17%Low
Khan et al540A/6 items: 0%Low
  • Methodological quality: number of positive scores/total number of quality items. High quality is defined as a score of 50% or more.