Persson 1997.

Methods	C: sealed envelopes outcome assessor not blind Exclusions during trial: None Losses to FU: 2
Participants	Sweden 81 patients (46% women) Mean age 47 years Clinical and radiological (MRI or CT‐myelography) evidence of cervical radiculopathy
Interventions	Rx: ACDF (with allograft, n=26) or cervical laminectomy Control: physiotherapy or cervical collar
Outcomes	Pain (VAS) paraesthesia and sensory loss at onset, 3, 12 and 16 months after treatment
Notes	Ex: spinal cord compression, absence of radiological evidence of root compression FU: 16 months Cross‐overs (patients allocated in conservative groups undergoing surgery): 6 (between 3 and 12 months); 1 allocated to physiotherapy and 5 allocated to collar group 3 patients allocated to the surgical group refused surgery because of spontaneous improvement."Intention to treat principle" was applied throughout. 8 surgically‐treated patients underwent a second operation between 3 and 12 months (6 in adjacent levels, 1 because of graft infection, 1 had exploration of the brachial plexus) 11 patients in the surgery group and 12 in the collar group received physiotherapy
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation?	Low risk	'randomized by the use of sealed envelopes'
Allocation concealment?	Unclear risk	not stated
Blinding? patients	High risk	patients aware of intervention group
Blinding? care providers	Unclear risk	not stated, but unlikely
Blinding? outcome assessor	High risk	'the same physiotherapist [who completed the baseline assessment], who did not take part in the treatment, also administered the post‐treatment measurements'; but patients in the collar group were wearing their collars.
Incomplete outcome data addressed? Withdrawal/drop‐out rate	Low risk
Incomplete outcome data addressed? Intention‐to‐treat analysis	Low risk	'allocation to the surgical group was retained in accordance with the 'intention to treat' principle. In the physiotherapy and cervical collar groups, all patients carried out the allocated treatment'.
Free of selective reporting?	Unclear risk	muscle strength, function (assessed by Sickness Impact Profile) and mood (assessed by Mood Adjective Check List) were investigated but data inadequate for quantitative comparisons
Similarity of baseline characteristics?	Low risk
Co‐interventions avoided or similar?	Unclear risk	11 patients in the surgery group and 12 in the collar group received physiotherapy; '1 patient in the physiotherapy group and 5 patients in the collar group underwent surgery because the result of the conservative therapies was unsatisfactory'
Compliance acceptable?	Low risk
Timing outcome assessments similar?	Low risk

C‐Concealment of allocation; Rx‐Treatment; JOA‐Japanese Orthopaedic Association; ACDF‐Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion; VAS‐Visual Analogue Scale; Ex‐Exclusion Criteria; C‐inadequate; B‐unclear