Livesley 1992.

Study characteristics
Methods	Method of randomisation: unknown; double‐blind Assessor blinding: likely as code only broken at end of trial Loss to follow‐up at 6 months: 3/48
Participants	Mansfield District General Hospital, Mansfield, UK Period of study recruitment: November 1988 to May 1990 48 participants with minimally displaced humeral neck fractures (all Neer Group 1); 4 had epiphyseal fractures Exclusion criteria: unable to co‐operate with treatment and attend daily therapy for the first 10 working days. 37 female, 11 male; mean age 62 years, range 11 to 85 years
Interventions	Interventions started on average 8.6 days since injury, upon referral to physiotherapy department. 1. Pulsed high frequency electromagnetic field (‘Curapulse’), 30 minutes/day for first 10 working days. (Intensity setting 3, pulse repetition frequency 35, maximum pulse power 300 watts.) 2. Dummy apparatus (deactivated machine) Assigned: 22/26 Completed (at 6 months): 21/24
Outcomes	Length of follow‐up: 6 months; also assessed at 1 and 2 months No data provided in report Range of movement of glenohumeral & scapulothoracic joints Pain scores, at rest, on movement, analgesia requirement Muscle wasting and strength Overall functional assessment score Subjective opinion of treatment Overall estimation of treatment (a ‘good result’) Time to discharge
Funding and conflict of interest statements	There was no statement on funding. There was no statement on conflicts of interest.
Notes	All participants received the same standardised physiotherapy regimen. No data provided in report for comparison between the two interventions.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided: "patients were randomized into two groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"[D]ouble‐blind", and randomisation code was only broken at end of the trial period to permit analyses
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Functional outcomes, pain, clinical outcomes, complications	Low risk	"[D]ouble‐blind", use of sham control
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Functional outcomes, pain, clinical outcomes, complications	High risk	Although loss to follow‐up reported, no results were presented for the trial groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Results not presented
Balance in baseline characteristics?	Unclear risk	Baseline comparability. However, although the article claims "patients ... were referred to the physiotherapy department without delay", the ranges for average time from injury to start treatment were 0 to 17 days (active) and 0 to 27 days (sham).
Free from performance bias?	Unclear risk	"Standardized physiotherapy regimen". However, although the article claims "patients ... were referred to the physiotherapy department without delay", the ranges for average time from injury to start treatment were 0 to 17 days (active) and 0 to 27 days (sham).