Vertical traction for lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review

Table 3 GRADE evaluation: quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

Quality						Summary of findings
Outcome (No. of studies)	RoB^a	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision^b	Publication bias^c	No. of participants	Effect size (SMD) with CI^d	GRADE
Vertical Traction + Physical Therapy VS Physical Therapy
Pain ST (1) (Prasad 2012 [35])	Not Serious	Not Serious	Not Serious	Serious	Likely	19^e	−0.14 (−1.03 to 0.76)	LOW
Activity limitation ST (1) (Prasad 2012 [35])	Not Serious	Not Serious	Not Serious	Serious	Likely	19^e	−0.31 (−1.21 to 0.58)	LOW
Vertical Traction + Bed Rest VS Bed Rest
Pain ST (1) (Moret 1998 [34])	Serious	Not Serious	Not Serious	Serious	Likely	16	−1.01 (−2.00 to −0.02)	VERY LOW
Activity limitation ST (1) (Moret 1998 [34])	Serious	Not Serious	Not Serious	Serious	Likely	16	−0.56 (−1.50 to 0.39)	VERY LOW
Vertical Traction + Medications VS Medications
Pain ST (1) (Khani 2015 [33])	Not Serious	Not Serious	Not Serious	Serious	Likely	50	−1.13 (−1.72 to −0.54)	LOW

^a RoB was considered “serious” in case of high risk of bias
^bImprecision was considered “serious” in case of one level (− 1) downgrading
^c Publication bias was not excluded, therefore it was considered sufficient for downgrading the quality of evidence
^d Effect size: Treatment effects favoring conservative intervention assigned negative Hedges standardized mean difference (SMD) values. ST = Short term
^e Prasad and colleagues recruited 26 patients, 24 of them were randomized, and 22 were eligible for assessment, but data on only 19 patients were published for the outcomes pain and activity limitation. For this reason, only 19 participants were considered included

ISSN: 2057-0082