Turner 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel‐group RCT Number of control groups: 1 Number of intervention groups: 1
Participants	Inclusion criteria: age 18 years or older, RDC/TMD Axis I TMD diagnosis Dworkin 1992 made by an oral medicine specialist based on a structured RDC/TMD clinical examination, residence within a 2‐hour drive of the TMD clinic, facial pain for at least 3 months, facial pain‐related disability, as defined by a chronic pain grade of II high, III, or IV (Von Korff 1992) and ability to communicate in English Exclusion criteria: need for further diagnostic evaluation, pending litigation or disability compensation for pain, current or previous CBT for pain, and major medical or psychiatric conditions that would interfere with ability to participate Pretreatment: similar demographically at baseline. More self‐care patients had disc displacement and more participants in PMT group had osteoarthritis of the jaw joint. Number eligible for study: 366 Number of participants: 158 Number randomly assigned to intervention (control): 79 (79) Number started treatment in intervention (control): 77 (79) Number completed treatment in intervention (control): 57 (53) completed all sessions, 67 (69) completed some sessions Number included in analysis from intervention (control): 72 (76) Comorbidity: not discussed Sex: 86% female, 14% male Ethnicity: 84% white Other sample characteristics: referred to specialist clinic
Interventions	CBT (PMT) Self‐care management (SCM) (control)
Outcomes	Characteristic Pain Intensity BDI Used in study but not review: GCPS category Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire Process measures: Survey of Pain Attitudes, TMD self‐efficacy scale, Coping Strategies Questionnaire catastrophising scale, Pain Catastrophizing Questionnaire, Chronic Pain Coping inventory
Identification	Date of study: 2001 to 2004, paper published 2006 Sponsorship source: funding for this study was provided by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Grant P01 DE08773 Country: USA Setting: Specialist Orofacial Pain Clinic Author name: Judith A Turner Institution: University of Washington Email: jturner@u.washington.edu Address: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
Notes	One of the three papers relating to this study was additional analyses of mediators and moderators, but had no additional raw data (Turner 2007).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Generated by a biostatistician on a computer programme using stratified sampling in random block designs
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequentially numbered envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to blind participants due to nature of study. Randomsation assignment was concealed to all study personnel until envelopes were opened by research staff after participant consent was obtained.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding of outcome assessors not mentioned. Self‐report so participants largely acting as their own outcome assessors and cannot be blind to the treatment they have received.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Clear rationale of imputation and sensitivity analyses where intention‐to‐treat analysis not possible due to dropout
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Predetermined endpoints for analysis. Table reports data for all key measures collected.
Other bias	Low risk	None noted