Skip to main content
. 2013 Dec 13;2013(12):CD003388. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4

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.