Meijer 2006.
| Methods | RCT; cost‐effectiveness analysis. Concealed randomisation | |
| Participants | Bank employees, sick‐listed workers with non‐specific upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints. Prevalent non‐specific upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders; n = 38 | |
| Interventions |
I: Multidisciplinary treatment (Mt): outpatient training programme; physical and psychological sessions and relaxation exercises; n = 23 Sessions for two months, 13 full days, five return‐to‐work sessions and one feedback session C: Usual care (Uc): guidance by occupational physician or general practitioner; n = 15 Follow‐up one year (two, six and 12 months) |
|
| Outcomes | Pain (VAS), function (DASH), return‐to‐work, kinaesiophobia (TAMPA), costs | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Block randomisation computer‐generated random sequence table. Envelopes allocated on the basis of participants' consecutive registration numbers |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Opaque sealed envelopes kept by "researcher with no contact with therapists, physicians or patients" |
| Blinding of participants? | High risk | Participants were not blinded |
| Blinding of caregivers? | High risk | No blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Does not mention who carried out objective outcome measures, but participants were unblinded for self‐reported outcome measures |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes ‐ <20% drop‐outs? | Low risk | Figure 1: 4/38 dropouts (< 20%) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes ‐ ITT analysis performed? | Low risk | Intention‐to‐treat analyses conducted |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol |
| Similarity of baseline characteristics? | Low risk | Groups similar at baseline: see Table 2 |
| Co‐interventions avoided? | Unclear risk | Unclear whether co‐interventions were avoided |
| Compliance acceptable ? | Low risk | 18/21 of intervention group showed good compliance |
| Timing outcome assessment comparable? | Low risk | Timing comparable |