Summary of findings 1. Cognitive‐behavioural treatment compared to other types of treatment for chronic neck pain at intermediate follow‐up.

Cognitive‐behavioural treatment compared to other types of treatment for chronic neck pain at intermediate follow‐up
Patient or population: chronic neck pain Settings: primary and secondary health care centres Intervention: cognitive‐behavioural treatment Comparison: other types of treatment
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)		No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Other types of treatment	Cognitive‐behavioural treatment
Pain Numerical Rating Scale, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain)	The mean pain ranged across control groups from 4.3‐7.0 points.	The mean pain in the CBT group was 0.89 lower (2.73 lower to 0.94 higher).	168 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2	No effect was found.
Disability Neck Disability Index, from 0 (no disability) to 100 (maximal disability)	*The intermediate follow‐up for the most representative study (Vonk 2009) was 26.5 (SD 13.9).	The estimated mean disability in the CBT group was 3.35 lower (7.53 lower to 0.98 higher).	168 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1	No effect was found.
Kinesiophobia Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, from 17 (no fear) to 68 ( maximal fear)	*The intermediate follow‐up for the most representative study (Vonk 2009) was 34.3 (SD 8.3).	The estimated mean kinesiophobia in the CBT group was 3.26 lower (5.76 to 0.67 lower).	168 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1	The effect was not clinically relevant. A 25% relative improvement is considered as a clinically important treatment effect for all secondary outcomes.
*Of the included trials for this outcome, we chose the study that is a combination of the most representative study population and has the largest weighting in the overall result in Revman (Vonk 2009). The reported data represent the intermediate follow‐up mean in the control group of this study. CI: Confidence interval; CBT: cognitive‐behavioural therapy.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹ Serious imprecision (i.e. total number of participants < 200 for each outcome; an optimal information size of 300 was computed considering a α of 0.05, a β of 0.2, and an effect size of 0.3 standard deviations).

² Unexplained heterogeneity (I² = 72%)