Gamito 2010.
Methods | Randomised controlled trial | |
Participants | 10 male war veterans of the Portugese Colonial War between 1963 and 1970 with DSM‐IV PTSD | |
Interventions | Virtual reality exposure (n = 5) vs exposure in imagination versus WL (n = 3) vs exposure in imagination (n = 3) in parallel | |
Outcomes | CAPS, IES | |
Notes | Comment: It is unclear who delivered the therapy | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "The participants were randomly assigned to three study groups". Comment: The method of sequence generation was not reported. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: There is no mention of any measures taken to conceal allocation. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: There was 1 drop‐out (from virtual reality exposure) without a reason. It is unclear how these missing data were handled. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Comment: Improvements in depression and anxiety were emphasised, despite measures of PTSD being indicated as the primary outcome measure. |
Other bias | High risk | Very small sample size. It is unclear who delivered the therapy. Treatment adherence was not measured. Baseline characteristics are poorly reported. The issue of researcher allegiance cannot be ruled out. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: Participants were aware of their allocation. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: It is unclear whether outcome assessors were blinded. |