van Tulder 2003

Jadad 1996

The van Tulder et al criteria, operationalization and scores are as follows:
Total criteria = 11; high quality = at least 6 criteria met; Score 1 for each criteria met

A. Was the method of randomisation adequate? A random (unpredictable) assignment sequence. Examples of adequate methods are computer‐generated random numbers table and use of sealed opaque envelopes. Methods of allocation using date of birth, date of admission, hospital numbers, or alternation should not be regarded as appropriate.

B. Was the treatment allocation concealed? Assignment generated by an independent person not responsible for determining the eligibility of the patients. This person has no information about the persons included in the trial and has no influence on the assignment sequence or on the decision about eligibility of the patient.

C. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? In order to receive a "yes," groups have to be similar at baseline regarding demographic factors, duration and severity of complaints, percentage of patients with neurological symptoms, and value of main outcome measure(s).

D. Was the patient blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

E. Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

F. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? The review author determines if enough information about the blinding is given in order to score a "yes."

G. Were co‐interventions avoided or similar? Co‐interventions should either be avoided in the trial design or be similar between the index and control groups.

H. Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? The review author determines if the compliance to the interventions is acceptable, based on the reported intensity, duration, number and frequency of sessions for both the index intervention and control intervention(s).

I. Was the drop‐out rate described and acceptable? The number of participants who were included in the study but did not complete the observation period or were not included in the analysis must be described and reasons given. If the percentage of withdrawals and drop‐outs does not exceed 20% for immediate and short‐term follow‐ups, 30% for intermediate and long‐term follow‐ups and does not lead to substantial bias a "yes" is scored.

J. Was the timing of the outcome assessment in all groups similar? Timing of outcome assessment should be identical for all intervention groups and for all important outcome assessments.

K. Did the analysis include an intention‐to‐treat analysis? All randomized patients are reported/analyzed in the group to which they were allocated by randomization for the most important moments of effect measurement (minus missing values), irrespective of noncompliance and co‐interventions. 

The Jadad et al. criteria and scores are as follows:
Maximum score = 5; high quality = at least 3

1a. Was the study described as randomised? (Score 1 if yes)

1b and 1c. Was the method of randomisation described and appropriate to conceal allocation? (Score 1 if appropriate and ‐1 if not appropriate)

2a. Was the study described as double‐blinded? (Score 1 if yes)

2b and 2c. Was the method of double blinding described and appropriate to maintain double blinding? (Score 1 if appropriate and ‐1 if not appropriate)

3. Was there a description of how withdrawals and dropouts were handled? (Score1 if yes)