Tekin 2014

Methods	Parallel RCT
Participants	Country of study: Turkey Setting: Rehabilitation outpatient unit Condition: fibromyalgia Prior management details: no analgesic use for 1 month prior to enrolment n = 51 Age mean (SD): active group 42.4 (78.63) years, sham group 46.5 (8.36) years Duration of symptoms: mean (SD) active group 10.81 (6.31) years, sham group 13.33 (6.65) Gender distribution: 47 F, 4 M
Interventions	Stimulation type: rTMS Stimulation parameters: frequency 10 Hz; coil orientation 45º angle from the midline, 100% RMT number of trains 30; duration of trains 5 s; ITI 12 s; total number of pulses 1500 Stimulation location: M1 midline, no neuronavigation Number of treatments: 10 sessions daily ‐ unclear whether only work days Control type: sham coil ‐ same sound and appearance, no control for sensory cues
Outcomes	Primary: pain NRS anchors 0 = no pain, 10 = most severe pain When taken: end of intervention Secondary: WHQoL‐BREF
Notes	Funding source: none reported COI: the study authors declared no COI
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote “Randomisation was completed with the help of a software programme that produces random allocation”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: allocation concealment not reported
Adequate blinding of participants?	Unclear risk	Comment: placebo coil did not control for the sensory aspects of stimulation. No formal assessment of blinding success reported
Adequate blinding of assessors?	Low risk	Quote: “the investigator who conducted the clinical evaluation received no information about patient admission, randomisation or mode of treatment”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: only 1 participant lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: no suggestion of selective outcome reporting
Study Size	High risk	Comment: 25 and 27 participants in each group
Study duration	High risk	Comment: only immediate postintervention follow‐up
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other bias detected