Table 1 Table summarising the rating scale criteria used for each of the quality assessments
Quality appraisal | Rating scale criteria |
|---|---|
Richness | 5 = Conceptually rich: studies with well-grounded and clearly described theories and concepts |
4 = Conceptually thick: studies with a rich description of a programme, but without explicit reference to the theory underpinning it | |
3 or less = conceptually thin: studies with weak programme descriptions where discerning theory would have been problematic [26] | |
Relevance | 5 = directly relevant if they focussed on low back pain, exercise prescription, therapeutic alliance, and the patient’s perspective |
4 = mostly relevant if they had one theme less than above | |
3 = not directly relevant if the articles focused only on exercise or low back pain (not both) without additional information on patient perspectives or therapeutic alliance | |
Rigour | “Are the methods used to generate the relevant data are credible and trustworthy” |
5 = well-conducted RCT, well-conducted SR of RCTs | |
4 = well-conducted quantitative studies, SR of other study types, well-conducted qualitative studies or mixed-method studies | |
3 = RCT with concerns of bias, quantitative analysis with some concerns over methods | |
2 = poor methodology (of any of the above) or not generalisable (case reports/case series) | |
1 = non-research |