| Ref ID | 261 |
| First Author | F. Colle |
| Journal | ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION |
| Year Of Publishing | 2002 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12474181/ |
| Keywords |
• Risk of bias • Physiotherapy • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Flawed risk of bias undertaken |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Small analytical study |
| First Author Country | France |
| Aim | To assess whether the scale used affects levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of studies on exercise therapy and chronic low back pain, 20 trials previously analysed in a systematic review were assessed by 2 readers using 16 different scales. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Re-analysing 20 trials from one published systematic review using 16 different quality assessment scales found that two of the 3 main results of the systematic review were influenced by the scale used. There was conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with inactive treatments; strong evidence that exercise therapy is more effective than usual care by a general practitioner. The use of summary scores to identify physical therapy trials of high quality is questionable. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | No |
| Interpretation impacted description |