Table 2 Methodological quality of controlled trials of Harpagophytum procumbens
From: Harpgophytum procumbens for osteoarthritis and low back pain: A systematic review
Methodological Quality Criteria | Gobel et al, 2001 | Schmelz et al, 1999 | Guyader, 1984 | Chrubasik et al, 1996 | Chrubasik et al, 1997 | Chrubasik et al, 1999 | Chrubasik et al, 2003 | Chantre et al, 2000 | Frerick et al, 2001 | Lecomte & Costa, 1992 | Biller et al, 2002 | Schruffer, 1980 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A Were eligibility criteria specified? | n | n | n | y | y | y | y | y | y | n | y | n |
B Was randomization appropriate? | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y |
C Was treatment allocation concealed? | y | y | y | y | n | y | y | y | y | y | y | y |
E Were groups similar at baseline regarding important prognostic indicators? | dk | dk | n | y | y | y | y | y | n | dk | dk | dk |
F Were outcome measure(s) and the control interventions explicitly described? | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y |
G Were co-interventions avoided or comparable? | dk | dk | dk | y | y | y | y | y | y | dk | y | y |
H Were the outcome measures relevant? | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | n | y | n | y |
I Were adverse events described? | y | dk | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | n | y |
J Were drop-outs described? | n | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | n | dk | n | y |
K Was the sample size based on a priori power calculation? | n | n | n | y | n | y | n | y | n | n | n | n |
L1 Did the study include intention-to-treat analysis? and/or | n | y | n | n | y | y | y | y | n | y | n | y |
N Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the POM? | y | n | n | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | n | n |
O Was the timing of outcomes appropriate? | y | y | n | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | y | Y |
Total | 7 | 7 | 6 | 12 | 11 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 9 |