Geraets 2005.

Methods	RCT; 2 arms; assessed at pre‐treatment, post‐treatment, 1 year
Participants	End of treatment n = 158 Start of treatment n = 176 Sex: 109 F, 83 M (at start of treatment) Mean age = 52.5 (SD 12.4) Source = mixed community and volunteer Diagnosis = shoulder pain Mean years of pain = not given
Interventions	"Graded exercise" "Primary care TAU"
Outcomes	Primary pain outcome: NRS Primary disability outcome: Shoulder Disability Questionnaire Primary mood outcome: none Catastrophising outcomes: PCCL catastrophising Shoulder disability questionnaire Shoulder pain Pain intensity NRS Quality of life Fear avoidance Kinesiophobia (2 items) Pain Coping and Cognition List: catastrophising Pain Coping and Cognition List: coping General Practitioner visits Physician visits Physiotherapy visits Number of drug prescriptions Number of days work absence Total cost of health care (Euros)
Notes	BT versus TAU: analyses 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 8.2 Yates quality scale: total quality = 26/35, design quality = 20/26, treatment quality = 6/9
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation according to random number table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number table generated by person not involved in study; opaque sealed envelopes; “Blinding for patients .... of allocated treatment was not possible” but treatment preferences elicited and shown to have no effect on outcome
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Attrition fully reported; dropouts different in pain characteristics but not outcome measures at baseline
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Fully reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Researchers not involved in randomisation collect data