Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment of RCTs

From: Posterior-Chain Resistance Training Compared to General Exercise and Walking Programmes for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study Risk of bias assessment of the studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Overall risk of bias rating (%)
Aasa et al. 2015 [30] + + n/a n/a + + + + + + + + 77
Atalay et al. 2017 [36] + n/a n/a + + + + + + + 62
Cai et al. 2015 [31] + + + n/a n/a + + + + + + + + 85
Cortell-Tormo et al. 2018 [14] + + + n/a n/a + + + + + + + 77
Hurley et al. 2015 [32] + + n/a n/a + + + + + + + + 77
Jackson et al. 2010 [33] + + n/a n/a + + + + + + + 69
Kell et al. 2009 [34] + + n/a n/a + + + + + + + + 77
Suh et al. 2019 [35] + n/a n/a + + + + + + + + 69
Number of studies with a “yes” response 6 6 4 0 0 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  
  1. All studies included in this table were completed under the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs. 1. Was true randomisation used for assigning participants to treatment groups? 2. Was allocation to treatment groups concealed? 3. Were treatment groups similar at the baseline? 4. Were participants blind to treatment assignment? 5. Were those delivering treatment blind to treatment assignment? 6. Were outcomes assessors blind to treatment assignment? 7. Were treatment groups treated identically other than the intervention of interest? 8. Was follow-up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analysed? 9. Were participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomized? 10. Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups? 11. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? 12. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? 13. Was the trial design appropriate, and any deviation from the standard RCT design accounted for in the conduct and analysis of the trial?