Background and PurposeThe methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is commonly evaluated in order to assess the risk of biased estimates of treatment effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify scales used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs in health care research and summarize the content, construction, development, and psychometric properties of these scales. MethodsExtensive electronic database searches, along with a manual search, were performed. ResultsOne hundred five relevant studies were identified. They accounted for 21 scales and their modifications. The majority of scales had not been rigorously developed or tested for validity and reliability. The Jadad Scale presented the best validity and reliability evidence; however, its validity for physical therapy trials has not been supported. Discussion and ConclusionMany scales are used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs, but most of these scales have not been adequately developed and have not been adequately tested for validity and reliability. A valid and reliable scale for the assessment of the methodological quality of physical therapy trials needs to be developed. T he medical literature is an important resource to guide clinical decision making and research. The evaluation of the methodological quality of studies is an essential step in the process of selecting the best clinical literature. According to Verhagen et al, 1 assessment of methodological quality involves evaluation of internal validity (the degree to which a study's design, conduct, and analysis have minimized biases) and external validity (the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized outside the experimental situation) as well as statistical analysis of primary research. Taken together, these validity constructs are important in determining the methodological quality of primary research. Khan et al 2 pointed out that some reasons for performing quality assessment include: to determine a minimum quality threshold for the selection of the primary studies for a systematic review; to explore differences in quality as an explanation for heterogeneity in study results; to weigh the results in proportion to the quality in metaanalysis; and, more importantly, to guide interpretation of findings, help determine the strength of inferences, and guide recommendations for future research and clinical practice.The assessment of the quality of controlled trials is essential because variations in the quality of trials can affect the conclusions about the existing evidence. 3 In a review of trials evaluating primarily medical treatments, Moher and colleagues 4,5 demonstrated that trials that did not include features such as blinding and allocation concealment tended to report an exaggerated treatment effect compared with trials that did include these features. These facts emphasize the importance of methodological quality assessment in order to provide accurate information on therapeutic effects.Trial quality can be divided ...

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to assess the evidence concerning the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in the management of temporomandibular disorders. Methods. A literature search of published and unpublished articles resulted in the retrieval of 36 potential articles. Results. Twelve studies met all selection criteria for inclusion in the review: 4 studies addressed the use of therapeutic exercise interventions, 2 studies examined the use of acupuncture, and 6 studies examined electrophysical modalities. Two studies provided evidence in support of postural exercises to reduce pain and to improve function and oral opening. One study provided evidence for the use of manual therapy in combination with active exercises to reduce pain and to improve oral opening. One study provided evidence in support of acupuncture to reduce pain when compared with no treatment; however, in another study no significant differences in pain outcomes were found between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. Significant improvements in oral opening were found with muscular awareness relaxation therapy, biofeedback training, and low-level laser therapy treatment. Discussion and Conclusion. Most of the studies included in this review were of very poor methodological quality; therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

Interferential current as a supplement to another intervention seems to be more effective for reducing pain than a control treatment at discharge and more effective than a placebo treatment at the 3-month follow-up. However, it is unknown whether the analgesic effect of IFC is superior to that of the concomitant interventions. Interferential current alone was not significantly better than placebo or other therapy at discharge or follow-up. Results must be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that used IFC alone. In addition, the heterogeneity across studies and methodological limitations prevent conclusive statements regarding analgesic efficacy.

Methodological quality of the studies generally was low and results equivocal with insufficient evidence to determine the effects of shift length on quality of patient care and healthcare provider outcomes. Clearly, robust well-designed studies are needed to examine the effect of shift length on patient and healthcare provider outcomes.

The association between cervical spine disorders (CSD) and temporomandibular disorders (TMD) has been extensively investigated. However, no studies investigating the relationship between the level of jaw disability and neck disability have been published. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether there was a relationship between neck disability measured using the neck disability index (NDI) and jaw disability measured through the jaw function scale (JFS). A sample of 154 subjects who attended the TMD/Orofacial Pain clinic and students and staff at the University of Alberta participated in this study. All subjects were asked to complete the NDI, the JFS, the jaw disability checklist (JDC), and the level of chronic disability of TMD (chronic pain grade disability questionnaire used in the RDC/TMD). Spearman rho test was used to analyse the relationship between neck disability and jaw disability. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the association between the level of chronic disability of TMD and neck disability. A strong relationship between neck disability and jaw disability was found (r = 0.82). A subject with a high level of TMD disability (grade IV) increased by about 19 points on the NDI when compared with a person without TMD disability. These results have implications for clinical practice. If patients with TMD have neck disability in addition to jaw disability, treatment needs to focus on both areas because the improvement of one could have an influence on the other.