Logo of eurspinejspringer.comThis journalThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice

Table 1

Return to:   Cost-effectiveness of Guideline-endorsed Treatments for Low Back Pain:
A Systematic Review

Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria [13, 14] and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list) [15], respectively

Risk of bias score (/11)CHEC-list (/19)a
Critchley et al. [33]719 (0)
Goossens et al. [41]214 (1)
Herman et al. [46]617 (1)
Hlobil et al. [26]715 (2)
Hollinghurst et al. [34]717 (1)
Johnson et al. [35]712 (1)
Karjalainen et al. [21, 22]813 (0)
Kominski et al. [30]511 (4)
Lamb et al. [36]715 (1)
Loisel et al. [25]514 (0)
Molde Hagen et al. [27]712 (1)
Niemisto et al. [23, 24]616 (0)
Ratcliffe et al. [37]519 (0)
Rivero-Arias et al. [38]818 (1)
Rivero-Arias et al. [39]518 (0)
Schweikert et al. [44]517 (1)
Seferlis et al. [31]47 (5)
Skouen et al. [28]514 (1)
Smeets et al. [42]818 (1)
Strong et al. [20]413 (1)
Torstensen et al. [29]69 (2)
UK BEAM Trial Team [40]517 (1)
Van der Roer et al. [43]618 (1)
Whitehurst et al. [32]617 (1)
Witt et al. [45]413 (1)
Studies with a risk of bias score of 6 or more were considered to have a low risk of bias [16]
aThe number of items that were not applicable from the CHEC-list is in parentheses. For example, performing an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (item 13) was not applicable for cost-minimization or cost-benefit analysis, and discounting (item 14) was not applicable for studies with a follow-up of 1 year or less