Ripat 2006.

Methods	RCT; no information on randomisation procedure
Participants	Symptomatic workers employed by a single company recruited through public and/or electronic mail. Workers with two or more symptoms of work‐related upper extremity disorder (WRUED; n = 68)
Interventions	Modified keyboard (light touch): modified version of the same keyboard designed to reduce activation force, vibration and key travel; n = 43 Standard keyboard: commercially available ergonomic keyboard; n = 25   Keyboard use for 24 weeks
Outcomes	Symptom severity scale (SSS), functional status scale (FSS)
Notes	No data available
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details of method used
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Some participants were placed in the adapted keyboard group as an "exception to the randomization process"
Blinding of participants?	High risk	Participants unblinded
Blinding of caregivers?	High risk	Caregivers not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not told who did the outcome measures, but likely to be research assistant, who was not blinded. Also participants unblinded for participant‐reported outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes ‐ <20% drop‐outs?	Unclear risk	Not told of any dropouts
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes ‐ ITT analysis performed?	Unclear risk	Unclear whether ITT analysis was performed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol
Similarity of baseline characteristics?	Low risk	Baseline comparable: see Table 2
Co‐interventions avoided?	Unclear risk	Unclear whether co‐interventions were avoided
Compliance acceptable ?	Unclear risk	Unclear compliance
Timing outcome assessment comparable?	Low risk	Timing was comparable