Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Review Article

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Table 2

Assessment of methodological quality for included systematic reviews.
Study IDItem 1Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5Item 6Item 7Item 8Item 9Item 10Item 11Total scoreQuality
Liu et al., 2007 [28]BCABCA0000ABCE0A18Low
Sun et al., 2009 [29]BCABCABCED0AABABABCD0A27Moderate
Guo et al., 2012 [30]BCABCABE00AABABABCE0A25Moderate
Hu et al., 2012 [31]CABCAB0ABCAABABABCE0A26Moderate
Wang et al., 2013 [32]BCABCAB00AABABAABA23Moderate
Zhang et al., 2013 [33]BCABCAB00AAABABAB022Low
Yang et al., 2013 [34]BCABCABC00ABAABABCEABA27Moderate
Zhu et al., 2015 [35]ABCABCABCEADACABCABCDABCABCD0AB36High
Item 1: was an “a priori” design provided?
Item 2: was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
Item 3: was a comprehensive literature search performed?
Item 4: was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
Item 5: was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Item 6: were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Item 7: was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
Item 8: was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
Item 9: were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Item 10: was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Item 11: was the conflict of interests stated?