Mishra 2000.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel‐group RCT Number of control groups: 1 Number of intervention groups: 3
Participants	Inclusion criteria: participants must have endorsed past or present jaw or facial pain, clicking, popping, or locking of the jaw or have received a past diagnosis of TMD Exclusion criteria: significant physical health condition (e.g. cancer, multiple sclerosis, carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia); 6 or more DSM‐IV Axis I diagnoses, psychosis, or active suicidal ideation; score 15 or below on the CPI (considered “doing well” and not in need of treatment) Pretreatment: no significant group differences at intake Number eligible for study: not stated Number of participants: 94 Number randomly assigned to intervention (control): 22, 23, 24 (25) Number started treatment in intervention (control): not stated Number completed treatment in intervention (control): 22, 23, 24 (25) Number included in analysis from intervention (control): 22, 23, 24 (25) Comorbidity: people with significant comorbidities including cancer and other pain conditions excluded, otherwise not mentioned Sex: 77 female, 17 male Ethnicity: white 74, African‐American 8, Hispanic 10, other 2 Other sample characteristics: mean education 15.54 years
Interventions	Cognitive behavioural skills Biofeedback Combined No treatment control
Outcomes	Characteristic Pain Intensity POMS total mood disturbance also split into 6 variables: tension, depression, anger, vigour, fatigue, confusion Used in study but not review: GCPS Limitations related to mandibular functioning
Identification	Date of study: paper published 2000 Sponsorship source: grants ROI DE10713 and K02 MH01107 National Institutes of Health Setting: university clinic Country: USA Author name: Kiran Mishra Institution: University of Texas Email: robert.gatchel@email.swmed.ed Address: Department of Psychiatry, Division of Psychology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75235‐9044.
Notes	Includes Mishra 2000, Gardea 2001 and Bernstein 2000. There are some discrepancies in methods reported between these papers.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Stratified randomisation (urn method) of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation concealment not discussed
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to blind participants in this kind of study. No mention of blinding of personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Self‐report; participants as own outcome assessors. No mention of blinding of study assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Number of participants who provided outcome data is not stated. Differences between papers of the same study in number of participants included, Mishra 2000 states 94, Gardea 2001 states 108, Bernstein 2000 states 121.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Measures described include pain, disability and mood, which are primary outcomes for this kind of study. Inconsistency in results, for example, CPI pre‐ and post‐treatment scores reported but POMS change scores for each scale reported.
Other bias	Low risk	None noted