Skip to main content
. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD003974. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3

Tan 1982.

Methods Design: three group parallel trial 
 Purpose: examine the effect of prophylactic behavioural‐cognitive training on procedural acute pain
Participants Patients: out‐patients having to undergo a painful diagnostic procedure (knee arthrogram) 
 Baseline comparability: yes
Interventions Placebo: procedural information and pain experience discussion without any pain control skills training 
 Untreated: no information or training 
 Experimental: behavioural‐cognitive skills training for pain control 
 (Co‐intervention: NS)
Outcomes Pain: McGill pain questionnaire 
 Pain: radiologist's rating and videotaped pain behaviour 
 Fear (self report and radiologist's rating) 
 Discomfort (self report and radiologist's rating)
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation? Unclear risk NS
Allocation concealment? Unclear risk NS
Blinding? 
 Treatment provider Unclear risk NS
Blinding? 
 Outcome assessor Unclear risk Not relevant as patient reported outcome
Incomplete outcome data addressed? 
 All outcomes High risk Drop‐out > 15% or NS
Free of selective reporting? Unclear risk No protocol available
Free of other bias? Low risk  
No signs of variance inequality or skewness? Low risk No variance inequality (F‐test not statistically significant) and no skewness (1.64 standard deviations does not exceed the mean)
Trial size > 49? High risk N = 24
Clearly concealed allocation + trial size > 49 + drop‐out max 15% High risk Trial size < 49