Scribd
Upload
24 views

EBP Assignment

The document provides a critical appraisal of a research article on the immediate effects of cervical manipulation on neck pain and range of motion. It analyzes the article based on the Pedro scale, giving it an overall score of 8 out of 10. The appraisal addresses eligibility criteria, randomization, blinding, follow-up, intention-to-treat analysis, and reporting of results.

Uploaded by

Basit Ali
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views

EBP Assignment

The document provides a critical appraisal of a research article on the immediate effects of cervical manipulation on neck pain and range of motion. It analyzes the article based on the Pedro scale, giving it an overall score of 8 out of 10. The appraisal addresses eligibility criteria, randomization, blinding, follow-up, intention-to-treat analysis, and reporting of results.

Uploaded by

Basit Ali
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

NAME: Basit Ali

ROLL NO: 13
SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Mujeeb Rahman
DPT BATCH 12 KMU IPM&R
Critical Appraisal of the Article
“IMMEDIATE EFFECTS ON NECK PAIN
AND ACTIVE RANGE OF MOTION AFTER
A SINGLE CERVICAL HIGH-VELOCITY
LOW-AMPLITUDE MANIPULATION IN
SUBJECTS PRESENTING WITH
MECHANICAL NECK PAIN:
ARANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Raquel Martı´nez-Segura, PT, DO,a Ce
´sar Ferna ´ndez-de-las-Pen ˜as, PT,b Mariana Ruiz-Sa ´ez, PT, CO,c Cristina Lo ´pez-Jime ´nez, PT,
DO,d and Cleofa ´s Rodrı´guez-Blanco, PT, DO
Critical appraisal is done on the basis of Pedro scale
which has 11 points. For each point there is a score of 1
except the first point. So we have a total score of 10.
SCORE = 8/10
1. Eligibility criteria were specified YES
2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups (in a
crossover study, subjects were randomly allocated an
order in which treatments were received) YES
3. allocation was concealed NO

4. the groups were similar at baseline regarding the


most important prognostic indicators YES
5. there was blinding of all subjects NO
6. there was blinding of all therapists who administered
the therapy. YES
7. there was blinding of all assessors who measured at
least one key outcome. YES
8. measures of at least one key outcome were obtained
from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated
to groups YES
9. all subjects for whom outcome measures were
available received the treatment or control condition as
allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at
least one key outcome was analysed by “intention to
treat”. YES
10. the results of between-group statistical comparisons
are reported for at least one key
Outcome YES
11. the study provides both point measures and
measures of variability for at least one key outcome
YES

You might also like