Table 2:

Characteristics of the outcome assessments in the trials included in our meta-analysis

TrialNo. of patientsClinical conditionExperimental v. controlOutcomeAssessment
BlindNonblind
Cohen et al11,12285Facial wrinklesArtecoll v. collagenFacial fold assessment scale (0–5), 6 moPhotos, 3 investigatorsInspection, treating investigator
Oesterle et al. 13221Angina pectorisLaser (TMR) v. medication onlyCCSA class (I–IV), 12 moInterview, assistant; CCSA, cardiologistInterview and CCSA, cardiologist
Powell et al. 1422Turbinate hypertrophyRadiofrequency reduction v. shamNasal obstruction (10-cm VAS), 4 wkNasal examination (rhinoscopy)Nasal examination (rhinoscopy)
Burkhoff et al. 15182Angina pectorisLaser (TMR) v. medication onlyCCSA class (I–IV), 12 moInterview; assistant; CCSA, cardiologistInterview and CCSA, cardiologist
Wedekind et al. 1675Panic disorderAerobic exercise v. relaxationPAS (0–52), 8 wkClinical assessment, raterClinical assessment, rater
Weaver et al. 17255Parkinson diseaseDeep brain stimulation v. standard careUPDRS III (0–108), 6 moExamination, neurologistExamination, neurologist
Noseworthy et al. 18168Multiple sclerosisPlasma exchange and cyclophosphamide v. placeboEDSS (0–10), 12 moExamination, neurologistExamination, neurologist
Narins et al. 19118Facial wrinklesHyaluronic acid v. collagenWrinkle severity rating scale (0–4), 12 wkInspection, evaluatorInspection, treating investigator
Ulm et al. 2049Parkinson diseaseCabergolin v. pergolidUPDRS III (0–108), 8 wkVideo, investigatorExamination, treating investigator
Meltzer et al. 21,22980Suicide riskOlanzapine v. ClozapineCGI-SS, 24 moClinical assessment, psychiatristsClinical assessment, psychiatrist
Miller et al. 2350Nasal woundMeroGel v. Merocel dressingSynechia (0–3), last follow-upEndoscopic image, 3 investigatorsLive endoscopy, clinician
Taber et al. 2426RSV infectionRibavirin aerosol v. placeboIllness severity score (0–3), day 1Clinical assessment, clinicianClinical assessment, clinician
US FDA25261Facial wrinklesHylaform v. ZyplastSeverity grading scale (0–5), week 12Photos, panelLive inspection, treating investigator
Landsman et al. 2636OnychomycosisLight therapy v. sham lightCAS* (0–3), day 180Photos, expert panelLive inspection, treating physicians
Iglesia et al. 2765Vaginal prolapsePolypropylene mesh v. standardPOP-Q (0-IV), 3 moExamination, practitioner (e.g., nurse, fellow)Examination, surgeon
Reddihough et al. 2861Cerebral palsyBotulinum toxin A v. physiotherapyGMFM (0–264), 6 moVideo, physiotherapistExamination, physiotherapist
  • Note: CAS = clinical assessment scale, CCSA = Canadian Cardiovascular Society (grading of) angina, CGI-SS = clinical global impression on suicide severity scale (7-point version), EDSS = expanded disability status scale, GMFM = gross motor function measure, PAS = panic and agoraphobia scale, POP-Q = pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, RSV = respiratory syncytial virus, TMR = transmyocardial laser revascularization, UPDRS = unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale, US FDA = US Food and Drug Administration, VAS = visual analogue scale.

  • * A 4-point grading scale without reported numerical values, which we assigned as 0–3.

  • Examinations were performed by 2 assessors for about one-half of the patients (i.e., age < 4 yr).