Martinez‐Segura 2006a.

Methods	Type of trial: RCT Number analysed/randomly assigned: 71/71 Intention‐to‐treat analysis: NR
Participants	Subacute chronic neck pain, no radiculopathy
Interventions	INDEX TREATMENT Cervical high‐velocity low‐amplitude technique group (manip): technique: manipulation ipsilateral side flexion, contralateral rotation; frequency: 1 session; route: cervical spine COMPARISON TREATMENT Sham/Control group (cntl): technique: neck positioned into ipsilateral side flexion, contralateral rotation, position held for 30 seconds, the side of manual contact was randomly assigned; frequency: 1 session CO‐INTERVENTION: NR Duration of treatment: 1 session Duration of follow‐up: none
Outcomes	PAIN INTENSITY (VAS, 0 to 10 cm) Baseline mean: manip 5.7, cntl 5.5 End of study mean: manip 2.2, cntl 5.1 Absolute benefit: manip 3.5, cntl 0.4 Reported results: significant favouring manipulation SMD: ‐1.67 (95% CI ‐2.21 to ‐1.12); NNTB: 2; treatment advantage 54% FUNCTION: NR PATIENT SATISFACTION: NR GPE: NR QoL: NR SIDE EFFECTS: NR COST OF CARE: NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Not reported
Blinding of Participants (performance bias)	High risk	Not reported
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 reported protocol
Similar groups at baseline?	Low risk	Page 513, Table 1
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