Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Orthop. May 18, 2016; 7(5): 315-337
Published online May 18, 2016. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i5.315
Published online May 18, 2016. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i5.315
Table 2 Quality appraisal of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve block diagnostic studies
| Manchikanti et al[23] | Pang et al[25] | Schwarzer et al[22] | Schwarzer et al[84] | Manchikanti et al[86] | Manchikanti et al[79] | Manchikanti et al[85] | Manchikanti et al[93] | Manchikanti et al[94] | Manchikanti et al[88] | Manchikanti et al[82] | Manchikanti et al[90] | Manchukonda et al[91] | Manchikanti et al[92] | Manchikanti et al[95] | DePalma et al[24] | |
| (1) Was the test evaluated in a spectrum of subjects representative of patients who would normally receive the test in clinical practice? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (2) Was the test performed by examiners representative of those who would normally perform the test in practice? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (3) Were raters blinded to the reference standard for the target disorder being evaluated? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| (4) Were raters blinded to the findings of other raters during the study? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (5) Were raters blinded to their own prior outcomes of the test under evaluation? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| (6) Were raters blinded to clinical information that may have influenced the test outcome? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| (7) Were raters blinded to additional cues, not intended to form part of the diagnostic test procedure? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (8) Was the order in which raters examined subjects varied? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (9) Were appropriate statistical measures of agreement used? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (10) Was the application and interpretation of the test appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (11) Was the time interval between measurements suitable in relation to the stability of the variable being measured? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| (12) If there were dropouts from the study, was this less than 20% of the sample | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Total | 9/12 | 8/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 | 9/12 |
- Citation: Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA, Falco FJE, Boswell MV. Management of lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint pain. World J Orthop 2016; 7(5): 315-337
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v7/i5/315.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v7.i5.315