| Study |
Bias |
| Randomisation process |
Deviations from intended interventions |
Missing outcome data |
Measurement of the outcome |
Selection of the reported results |
Overall |
| Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Schultz 2018 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT was balanced between the groups |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness was balanced between the groups |
Low risk of bias |
Participant‐reported outcome that involves judgements, and a sham was used |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the trial register, the methods and the results sections. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment. |
| Wang 2017 |
Low risk of bias |
The allocation sequence was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted |
Low risk of bias |
Taking account only 7% of the data were missing, we considered LOCF a valid imputation method for this kind of intervention. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded, and it is an observer reported outcome that involves judgements. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available, and both adjusted and unadjusted analysis were reported. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded and only the journal article is available. |
