Chen 2007.
| Methods | Type of trial: quasi‐RCT Number analysed/randomly assigned: 65/70 Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not calculated | |
| Participants | Chronic cervicogenic headache from degenerative changes | |
| Interventions | INDEX TREATMENT
Manipulation (A): technique: manipulation; frequency: 10 sessions, every other day; dose: 20‐ to 30 minute‐treatment; route: cervical spine COMPARISON TREATMENT Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (B): technique: TENS Perimedic, 10 Hz, 250 ns; frequency: 10 sessions every other day; dose: 20‐minute duration; route: NR CO‐INTERVENTION: NR Duration of therapy period: 10 sessions Duration of follow‐up: 4 weeks |
|
| Outcomes | PAIN (NRS, 0 to 10) Baseline mean: A 7.45, B 7.86 End of study mean: A 2.31, B 5.26 Absolute benefit: A 5.14, B 2.6 Reported results: significant favouring manipulation SMD (A vs B): ‐1.92 (95% CI ‐2.49 to ‐1.35); NNTB 7 FUNCTION: NR PATIENT SATISFACTION: NR GPE: NR QoL: NR SIDE EFFECTS: none COST OF CARE: NR |
|
| Notes | Chinese translation: Kein Trinh | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Page 404, right column, paragraph 1 |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Page 404, right column, paragraph 1 |
| Blinding of Participants (performance bias) | High risk | Blinding not mentioned in the paper but really not possible, as 2 treatment methods are very different |
| Blinding of Personal (performance bias) | High risk | Page 404, left column, paragraph 2 |
| Blinding of the Outcome assessor (detection bias) | High risk | Page 404, right column, 1.3 and 1.4 sections. Describe subjective rating system of treatment effectiveness and pain score. Scores are given by participant, so outcome assessor is not blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | Page 404, right column, lines 5 to 7 |
| Randomized Participants analysed were allocated (attrition bias) | High risk | Table 2, page 405 |
| Selective outcome (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No previous protocol published |
| Similar groups at baseline? | Low risk | Page 405, section 2.1; also Tables 1 and 2, baseline data |
| co‐interventions avoided or similar? | Low risk | Not mentioned |
| Compliance acceptable? | Low risk | Page 405, section 2.1 |
| Similar timing of outcome assessment? | Low risk | Page 404, right column, section 1.4 |