Acupuncture for Low Back Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Table 2

Methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews.

Authors (date)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Total

Lee et al. (2013) [16]

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

CA

Y

Y

N

6

Lam et al. (2013) [17]

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

6

Wu et al. (2013) [18]

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5

Xu et al. (2013) [19]

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

5

Furlan et al. (2012) [20]

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

5

Li et al. (2010) [21]

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5

Rubinstein et al. (2010) [22]

N

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

5

Machado et al. (2009) [23]

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

3

Ammendolia et al. (2008) [24]

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

N

4

Yuan et al. (2008) [25]

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

4

Li et al. (2008) [26]

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

7

Keller et al. (2007) [27]

N

CA

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

2

Manheimer et al. (2005) [28]

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

8

Furlan et al. (2005) [29]

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

9

Zhu et al. (2002) [30]

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

NA

Y

N

N

2

Ernst and White (1998) [31]

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

8

Score

2

13

12

4

2

8

15

7

13

7

1

Mean = 5.25

(1) Was an “a priori” design provided? (2) Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? (3) Was a comprehensive literature search performed? (4) Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? (5) Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? (6) Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? (7) Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? (8) Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? (9) Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? (10) Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? (11) Was the conflict of interests stated?
Y: yes; N: no; CA: cannot answer; NA: not applicable.