Ketola 2002.

Methods	RCT; no info on randomisation procedure; ‘care‐giver’ blinded
Participants	Employees working with video display units (VDUs). Neck/shoulder complaint > one month; non‐specific; n = 124. Employees who use the mouse currently
Interventions	Intensive ergonomics: two physiotherapists visited the worksite and changed worksite according to checklist; n = 39 Education ergonomics: workers attended a one‐hour training session in ergonomics; n = 35 Control group: one‐page leaflet; n = 35   Two‐ and 10‐month follow‐up
Outcomes	Discomfort (6‐point Likert), strain (6‐point Likert), pain (yes/no)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Using stratified random sampling—The three administrational units were used as a stratum. The success of the randomization was checked.."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear whether allocation was concealed
Blinding of participants?	Unclear risk	Participants unclear whether blinded
Blinding of caregivers?	Unclear risk	Unclear whether care provider blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Two blinded experts used to detect changes in workstations, but diary and questionnaires provided self‐reported outcomes; participants not fully blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes ‐ <20% drop‐outs?	Low risk	Seven dropouts: < 20%
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes ‐ ITT analysis performed?	High risk	No ITT analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol
Similarity of baseline characteristics?	Low risk	Groups similar at baseline
Co‐interventions avoided?	Unclear risk	Unclear whether co‐interventions were avoided
Compliance acceptable ?	Unclear risk	Unclear compliance rate
Timing outcome assessment comparable?	Low risk	Timing comparable