Table 3

The quality-rating scores of articles

Green

[20]

Haslam

[19]

Hoeksma

[15]

Stener-Victorin

[18]

Sylvester

[17]

Tak

[16]


A: Concealed allocation

1

0

2

0

1

1

B: Intention to treat

1

0

2

0

0

2

C: Blinded assessors

1

0

2

0

1

2

D: Comparable groups

1

1

2

0

0

2

E: Blinded subjects

0

0

0

0

0

0

F: Blinded treatment providers

0

0

0

0

0

0

G: Identical care programmes

1

0

2

0

1

0

H: Inclusion criteria

1

2

2

2

0

2

I: Relevant diagnostic criteria

2

1

2

1

0

1

J: Outcomes defined

1

2

2

2

1

2

K: Diagnostic tests useful

1

0

1

1

0

1

L: Duration of surveillance

1

0

2

1

0

1

M: Intervention practical

2

2

2

2

2

2


Total

13

8

21

9

6

16


A. Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed before allocation?

B. Were the outcomes of patients who withdrew described and included in the analysis?

C. Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status?

D. Were the treatment and control groups comparable at entry?

E. Were the subjects blind to assignment status after allocation?

F. Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status?

G. Were care programs, other than the trial options, identical?

H. Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?

I. Are the diagnostic criteria used relevant?

J. Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?

K. Were diagnostic tests used in outcome assessment clinically useful?

L. Was the duration of surveillance clinically appropriate, with active and systematic follow-up?

M. Was there practical relevance of the intervention?

McNair et al. Arthritis Research & Therapy 2009 11:R98   doi:10.1186/ar2743

Open Data