Nicassio 1997.

Methods	RCT; 2 arms; assessed at pre‐treatment, post‐treatment, 6 months
Participants	End of treatment n = 71 Start of treatment n = 96 Sex: 63 F, 8 M (at follow‐up) Mean age = 53.1 (SD no given) Source = pain or rehabilitation clinic, support groups Diagnosis = fibromyalgia Mean years of pain = 11.1
Interventions	"behavioural treatment" "education"
Outcomes	Primary pain outcome: not available Primary disability outcome: quality of well being Primary mood outcome: CES‐D Depression Catastrophising outcome: RAI helplessness Pain index: composite of Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire pain scale, MPQ PRI, number of body areas, and flare index Pain Behavior Checklist self reported pain behaviour Pain behaviour (Keefe & Block) observation Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) Rheumatology Attitudes Index helplessness subscale Pain Management Inventory active and passive coping Quality of Well being Scale QWB: structured interview on functional impairment Quality of Social Support Scale Myalgia score, nurse rated on examination
Notes	BT versus active, post‐treatment and follow‐up: analyses 5.2, 5.3, 6.2, 6.3 Yates quality scale: total quality = 21/35, design quality = 15/26, treatment quality = 6/9
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	In blocks, “randomly assigned, using a random numbers table”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Not reported, though credibility ratings equal across treatments
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Attrition fully reported; differential attrition across groups; no differences
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Fully reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported