Margit Kooijman

76 TABLE 1. Criteria list for assessing the methodological quality of prognostic cohort studies on shoulder disorders Analysis Data were extracted by using a predefined data extraction form regarding study population, design, setting, outcome measures, prognostic factors and strength of association. To facilitate interpretation and comparison of the results the studies were categorized per setting (primary care, secondary care and occupational setting). Statistically significant multivariate associations or if not available, univariate associations were presented. Non-significant associations were summarised. Prognostic factors examined only once were described separately from those occurring twice or more. Classification of prognostic factors was performed independently by two reviewers (MK and DB), if necessary, a third (IS) and fourth (CV) reviewer were consulted until consensus was reached. Outcome measures where so diverse that we chose to organize them in either ‘better’ or ‘poorer’ outcome. For example, less pain, better function, being able to work and no recurrent complaints were considered ‘better’ and more pain, more disability and worse (perception of) outcome as ‘poorer’. Due to heterogeneity in study population, setting, prognostic factors and outcome measures, statistical pooling of results (meta-analysis) was considered inappropriate. Instead, a best evidence synthesis was performed. In this qualitative analysis, conclusions are based on Criteria Score Study population A. Inception cohort (defined in relationship to onset of symptoms) +/-/? B. Description of inclusion and exclusion +/? C. Description of study population +/? Response D. Response >75% +/-/? E. Information about non-responders versus responders +/-/? Follow-up (extent and length) F. Prospective data collection +/-/? G. Follow-up of at least 6 months +/-/? H. Drop-outs/loss to follow-up < 20% +/-/? I. Information completers versus loss to follow-up/drop-outs +/-/? Treatment J. Treatment in cohort is fully described/standardised +/-/? Outcome K. Standardised assessment of relevant outcome criteria +/? Prognostic factors L. Standardised assessment of patient characteristics and potential clinical prognostic factor(s) +/? M. Standardised assessment of potential psychosocial prognostic factor(s) +/? Data presentation N. Frequencies of most important outcome measures +/- O. Frequencies of most important prognostic factors +/- P. Appropriate analysis techniques +/-/? Q. Prognostic model is presented +/-/? R. Sufficient numbers +/-/?