TABLE 3.

Risk of bias.

Category of bias	Paludo et al. (2008)		Lukrafka et al. (2012)
	Authors’ judgement	Support for judgement	Authors’ judgement	Support for judgement
Generation of sequence	Low risk	Simple randomisation Table of random numbers	Low risk	Computerised random number generator to select blocks of 3 and 4
Allocation concealment	Unclear risk	No specifications on concealment	Low risk	Use of sequentially numbered opaque envelopes
Blinding:
Participants	High risk	Participants knew in which group they were assigned	High risk	Participants knew in which group they were assigned
Outcome assessor	Low risk	Investigators, nurses and physicians were blinded	Low risk	Study radiologist and epidemiologist blinded
Data analysts	Unclear risk	No information on data analysts	Low risk	Data analysts are blinded
Incomplete data	Low risk	Intention-to-treat principle applied Number lost to follow-up and reason for loss to follow-up similar for both groups	Low risk	Intention-to-treat analyses Number lost to follow-up and reason for loss to follow-up similar for both groups
Selective outcome reporting	Low risk	Primary and secondary outcome measures reported	Low risk	Primary and secondary outcome measures reported
Other potential threats	Unclear risk	Baseline characteristics similar Groups treated equally, except for treatment No other information available	Unclear risk	Baseline: tendency for more children with pleural effusion in intervention group Groups treated equally, except for treatment No other information available

Note: Please see the full reference list of the article, Corten, L., Jelsma, J. & Morrow, B.M., 2015, ‘Chest physiotherapy in children with acute bacterial pneumonia’, South African Journal of Physiotherapy 71(1), Art. #256, 10 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v71i1.256, for more information.