Table 1.

GRADE evidence profiles per study

No of participants included in the analysis	Summary of findings for pain			P value (posttreatment between groups)				Quality assessment
	Mean difference pre-post treatment (VAS score 0–10)		P value (pre-posttreatment per intervention)					Risk of bias						Indirectness					Imprecision						Overall quality of evidence
Physical therapy
Field et al. [42] massage therapy vs. relaxation therapy
Massage N = 10		− 3.0	< 0.005	Not given					Very seriousa					Seriousf,g					Seriousj						⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Relaxation N = 10		− 0.5	NS
Klepper [38] physical conditioning program vs. waiting list
Physical conditioning N = 25		− 0.5	NS	Not applicable (within subjects design)					Very seriousb					Not serious					Seriousk						⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Waiting list N = 25		− 0.7	NS
Tarakci et al. [39] land-based home exercise vs. waiting list
Land-based home exercise N = 43		− 0.9	< 0.001	0.29					Not serious					Not serious					Seriousk						⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Waiting list N = 38		− 0.7	0.002
Mendonca et al. [41] pilates exercise vs. conventional exercise program
Pilates exercise N = 25		− 2.3	< 0.01	< 0.0001					Not serious					Not serious					Seriousk						⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Conventional exercise program N = 25		+ 0.2	NS
Baydogan et al. [35] strengthening vs. balance-proprioceptive exercise
Strengthening exercise N = 15		− 1	< 0.001	0.502					Seriousc					Seriousg					Seriousl						⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Balance-proprioceptive exercise N = 15		− 1	< 0.001
Elnaggar and Elshafey [37] resistive underwater exercise vs. traditional physical therapy
Resistive underwater exercise N = 15		− 4.4	0.001		0.001				Not serious					Serioush					Not serious						⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Traditional physical therapy N = 15		− 1.1	0.001
Psychological interventions
Stinson et al. [40] managing arthritis online program vs. attention control
Managing arthritis online N = 22		− 0.6	Not given		0.03				Not serious					Seriousf,g					Not serious						⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Attention control N = 24		+ 0.5	Not given
Brown et al. [43] cognitive behavioral therapy vs. education only vs. no contact
Cognitive behavioral therapy N = 22		Not given	Not given			CBT and education only vs. no-contact P = 0.68			Seriousd					Seriousf,g					Seriousl						⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Education only N = 10		Not given	Not given
No-contact control N = 16		Not given	Not given
Lomholt et al. [34] cognitive behavioral therapy vs. waiting list
Cognitive behavioral therapy N = 9		+ 0.4	Not given			0.81			Not serious					Seriousi,g					Seriousj						⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Waiting list N = 10		+ 0.5	Not given
Eid et al. [36] physical therapy with biofeedback vs. physical therapy
Physical therapy with biofeedback N = 18		− 3.7	0.0001			0.001			Not serious					Seriousi,g					Not serious						⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Conventional physical therapy N = 18		− 2.2	0.0001
Spiegel et al. [33] peer support vs. waiting list
Peer support N = 16		− 0.3	Not given			0.63			Seriouse					Seriousf,g					Seriousk						⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Waiting list N = 14		− 0.2	Not given

NS not significant

^aRandom sequence generation, allocation concealment, attrition bias and reporting bias not described

^bThere was risk of selection, attrition and detection bias

^cThere was risk of detection bias, allocation concealment was not described

^dThere was risk of attrition bias, allocation concealment was not described

^eThere was risk of attrition bias, blinding of outcome assessment was not described

^fOnly adolescents

^gThe vast majority was female

^hNo information was given concerning age range and gender of participants

ⁱLimited age range

^jSmall sample size

^kVery large standard deviation. l. no information was given regarding standard deviation or confidence interval