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

Table 2. Methodological quality assessment
(Continued)
Kerr 2003 Y and DK DK Y,N,Y DK DK N Y N Score=4 (Low). Co-interventions
might have influenced the results.
Patients followed: 76% in the short
and 66.7% in the intermediate follow-ups
sion
Kittang
2001
N and DK N DK,DK,Y Y Y Y Y Y Score=6. No serious flaws (High).
Baseline differences in three factors
(days of sick leave previous year,
previous attendance at back schools
and use of pain killers)
Kurosu
1979(a);
Kurosu
1979(b)
DK
DK
and
DK N, N, DK DK Y DK Y DK Score=2 (Low)
Lehmann
1986
DK
DK
and
DK N, N, N Y DK N Y N Score=2 (Low). Follow-up: 77%
immediately after and 61% after 6
months
Leibing
2002
Y and Y Y Y,N, Y Y DK N Y DK Score=7 (High) However, dropout
rate: 24% in the short and 37%
in the long-term
Li 1997 DK and N DK Y, N, N DK DK N Y DK Score=2 (Low) No information
about allocation of patients. No description
of lost patients
Lopacz
1979
DK
DK
and
DK N, N, N Y DK Y Y Y Score=4 (Low). No information
about randomisation and not
blinded
MacDonald
1983
DK
DK
and
Y Y, N, DK DK DK Y DK Y Score=4 (Low). No information
about randomisation and timing of
follow-up measures
Mendelson
1983
DK
DK
and
Y Y, N, Y DK DK Y Y N Score=5 (Low). Cross over study.
Meng
2003
Y and Y
Y (pain); N
(Roland)
N, N, N Y DK Y Y Y Score=7 (small difference in baseline
in pain outcomes). Score= 6
(important baseline difference in
RDQ (acupuncture group: 9.8 and
control group: 11.8). (High)
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
118