Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)

Table 2. Methodological quality assessment
(Continued)
Ding 1998 DK and N DK Y, N, N DK DK Y Y N Score=3 (Low). Main outcome is
very subjective.
Edelist
1976
DK
DK
and
DK Y, N, Y DK Y DK DK DK Score=3 (Low). Main outcome
is a subjective measure. Methods
poorly described
Garvey
1989
Y and DK DK Y, N, Y Y Y Y Y Y Score=8. No serious flaws (High)
. Baseline characteristics are not
shown. Groups are very different in
size
Giles 1999 DK and Y DK N, N, Y DK N N Y N Fatal flaw= 52% drop out during
treatment period in the acupuncture
group
Giles 2003 Y and Y Y N, N, DK Y DK N Y Y Score=6. 39% drop out at 9-weeks
(Low). No adjustment for multiple
comparisons
Grant
1999
Gunn
1980
Y and Y N N, N, Y Y DK Y Y N Fatal flaw= baseline differences
in main outcome measures. VAS
(range 0-200) at baseline in acup
group was 140 and in the TENS
group was 101
N and DK DK N, N, DK DK DK Y N N Score=1 (Low). Allocation by alternation
and not concealed. No mention
of blinded assessments. We
don’t have baseline values for pain.
Co-interventions were allowed and
not standardized or monitored. No
ITT: this is not a big problem for
the 12-week follow-up, but maybe
for the longer term follow-up
He 1997 DK and N Y Y, N, N DK DK N Y DK Score=3 (Low). No information
about allocation of patients. No description
of lost patients
Inoue
2000
Inoue
2001
Y and Y DK Y,N, Y Y Y Y Y Y Score=9 (High). We believe there
were no losses because the followup
was shortly after the single session
Y and Y DK Y,N,Y Y Y Y Y Y Score=9 (High). We believe there
were no losses because the followup
was shortly after the single ses-
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
117