Table 3.

Items included in the three methodological quality lists and the frequency of answers. IMLB likelihood of bias in pain research reports, DL Delphi List, MAL Maastricht-Amsterdam List

		Methodological quality score
Domaina	Items	IMLB	DLd	MALd
2	Were the eligibility criteria specified?		20/6/0	8/17/1
4	Was the study described as randomized b	25/1
4	Was a method of randomization performed?		25/1/0	10/2/14
4	Was the method of randomization described and appropriate? c	8/17/1
4	Was the treatment allocation concealed?		4/5/17	4/5/17
5	Were outcome measures relevant?			25/1/0
5	Was the timing of the outcome assessment in both groups comparable?			24/1/1
7	Were the experimental and control interventions explicitly described?			25/1/0
8	Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators?		17/3/6	5/4/17
8	Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures?		20/6/0	20/6/0
8	Was the sample size of each group described?			20/5/1
9	Was there a description of withdrawals and/ dropouts?b	16/10
9	Was the withdrawal / drop-out rate described and acceptable?			16/9/1
9	Was a short-term follow-up measurement performed?			22/4/0
9	Was a long-term follow-up measurement performed?			15/11/0
10	Was the care provider blinded to the intervention?		7/18/1	7/18/1
10	Was the patient blinded to the intervention?		8/18/0	8/18/0
10	Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention?		16/2/8	16/2/8
10	Was the study described as double blind?b	8/18
10	Was the method of blinding described and appropriate?c	6/19/1
11	Were co-interventions avoided or comparable?			15/8/3
12	Were adverse effects described?			8/18/0
13	Was the compliance acceptable in all groups?			10/0/16
15	Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis?		13/7/6	13/8/5

^a Domains described in Table 2

^b Number of Yes (1)/No (0) answers

^c Number of Appropriate (1)/Nothing (0)/Inappropriate (−1) answers

^d Number of Yes (1)/No (0)/Don’t know (0) answers