Cassidy 1992.
| Methods | Type of trial: RCT Number analysed/randomly assigned: 100/100 Intention‐to‐treat analysis: conducted | |
| Participants | Acute, subacute, chronic neck pain with varied degenerative changes (spondylosis) | |
| Interventions | INDEX TREATMENT
Manipulation (A): technique: rotation manipulation away from the direction of pain; frequency: 1 session; dose: 1 manipulation; route: cervical spine COMPARISON TREATMENT Mobilisation (B): technique: muscle energy technique described by Bourdillon, an isometric contraction localised to the involved level, held for 5 seconds, repeated 4 times with increasing rotation or lateral flexion at localised levels; frequency: 1 session; route: cervical spine CO‐INTERVENTION: none Duration of treatment: 1 session Duration of follow‐up: none |
|
| Outcomes | PAIN (NRS, 0 to 100) Baseline mean: A 37.7, B 31.0 End of study mean: A 20.4, B 20.5 Absolute benefit: A 17.3, B 10.5 Reported results: not significant SMD (A vs B): 0.00 (95% CI ‐0.40 to 0.39) (power 16%) FUNCTION: NR PATIENT SATISFACTION: NR GPE: NR QoL: NR SIDE EFFECTS: no complications; 3 participants in each group reported more pain after intervention (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.03) COST OF CARE: NR |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Mentioned in letter to editor, 1993, page 279 |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Mentioned in letter to editor, 1993, page 279 |
| Blinding of Participants (performance bias) | High risk | Not possible owing to design |
| Blinding of Personal (performance bias) | High risk | Not possible owing to design |
| Blinding of the Outcome assessor (detection bias) | High risk | Not possible owing to design |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | Pre‐post design |
| Randomized Participants analysed were allocated (attrition bias) | Low risk | Pre‐post design |
| Selective outcome (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No previous protocol found |
| Similar groups at baseline? | High risk | Mentioned in letter to editor, 1993, page 279 |
| co‐interventions avoided or similar? | Low risk | Pre‐post design |
| Compliance acceptable? | Low risk | Pre‐post design |
| Similar timing of outcome assessment? | Low risk | Pre‐post design |