Description of the random allocation:|
|Treatment performed by appropriate and experienced person?||
Is the intervention described?|
Is the assessment blinded?|
The sham procedure:|
2. In the same position as SM?
Conclusion: Is the sham psychologically acceptable (1 pt), possibly acceptable (0.5 pt), not acceptable (0 pt)
If no sham procedure, at least are the subjects naïve?|
|Is the measurement procedure described?||Is reliability of the outcome variables reported?||Were pain readings taken more than once at each point?||After the study started, are losses and exclusions of study subjects reported or evident?|
|Rationale for inclusion in quality assessment||
1)Ensuring equal distribution of study subjects|
2) Prevent risk of cheating during group allocation and risk of bias during assessment
|Ensuring interventions are appropriately administered||Ensuring that study can be reproduced||
1Preventing risk of assessor bias|
2.Preventing “data massage”
|Assuring the credibility of the sham both from a psychological and physiological aspect||Ensuring that there is no risk of participant bias||Ensuring that study can be reproduced||As validity is difficult to obtain ensuring that, at least, the outcome variable is reliable||More than one reading is needed to avoid unrepresentative data||Making it possible to detect risk of exclusion/attrition bias|
|Interpretation details (where relevant)||
1).as it said that participants were allocated into groups in a random fashion?|
2) Was it stated that groups were concealed during random allocation?
Appropriate: practitioner with training in SM|
We believed the study when authors reported some sort of experience or expertise for the treating clinicians
|If we understood what had been done in the experiment, we considered this acceptable||This had to be stated in the text||1–3. A sham procedure may be able to “fool” a study subject but…||This had to be stated in the text||If we understood the procedure, we considered this acceptable||This could be reported with a reference to previous study or a reliability study could be reported in the Result section||This had to be stated in the Method or Result section||This had to be stated or obvious from information given in Tables or Result section|
1. 0.5 pt.|
2. 0.5 pt
|1 pt||1 pt||
1. 0.5 pt.|
2. 0.5 pt
1 or 2: 0.5 pt.|
1 + 2: 1 pt.
3 found acceptable: 1 pt.
3 not found acceptable: 0 pt.
Conclusion: Is the sham psychologically acceptable (when 1 pt. is given), possibly acceptable (when 0.5 pt. is given), not acceptable (when 0 pt. is given)
Yes: 1 pt.|
No: 0 pt.
If NA, this case is not taken into account.
|1 pt||1 pt||1 pt||1 pt|