Bargiel‐Matusiewicz 2011a.
Methods |
|
|
Participants |
|
|
Interventions | Treatment group
Control group
Co‐interventions
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Sequence generation methods were not reported in sufficient detail to perform an adjudication |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Method of allocation concealment was not reported in sufficient detail to perform an adjudication |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Blinding of participants and/or the investigators was not reported. However, the methods of intervention and control treatment were physically different, and therefore masking of intervention was unlikely |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | The AIS was a self‐reported measurement. As such, the outcome assessment was conducted by participants who could be aware of the treatment received. We judged the outcome assessment to be at high risk of bias for these outcome measures |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported in sufficient detail to perform an adjudication |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported in sufficient detail to perform an adjudication |
Other bias | Unclear risk | It was not clear if there was evidence of imbalance at baseline. Not reported in sufficient detail to perform an adjudication |