Table 1

Assessment of methodological quality of studies detailing course of acute low back pain

StudyDefined sample*Representative sampleComplete follow upPrognosis§Blinded outcomeStatistical adjustment**
Cooper et al 199612; Tate et al 199913YesYesYesYesNoYes
Coste et al 199414YesYesYesYesNoYes
Dettori et al 199515YesNoNoYesNANA
Faas et al 199316; Faas et al 199517YesNoYesYesNANA
Fordyce et al 198618YesNoNoNoNANA
Hazard et al 199619; Reid et al 199720NoYesYesYesYesNo
Hazard et al 200021YesYesYesYesNANA
Hides et al 199422; Hides et al 200123YesNoYesYesNANA
Klenerman et al 199524YesNoNoYesNoNo
Malmivaara et al 199525YesNoYesYesNANA
Rozenberg et al 200226YesNoYesYesNANA
Schiottz-Christensen et al 199927YesNoYesYesNoYes
Seferlis et al 19989; Seferlis et al28YesYesYesYesNoYes
Sieben et al 200229YesNoNoYesNANA
Weber et al 199330NoNoYesYesNANA
  • No-criterion clearly not satisfied or unclear if criterion is satisfied. NA=study did not evaluate prognostic factors.

  • *Description of source of participants and inclusion and exclusion criteria.

  • †Participants selected by random selection or as consecutive cases.

  • ‡At least one prognostic outcome available from at least 80% of study population at three month follow up or later.

  • §Studies must provide raw data, percentages, survival rates, or continuous outcomes.

  • ¶ Assessor unaware of at least one prognostic factor, used to predict prognostic outcome, at time prognostic outcome was measured.

  • ** For at least two prognostic factors with adjustment factor reported.