Participants described the characteristics (type, onset, duration, severity) of each adverse event on a questionnaire administered at the second through fourth treatments and at follow-up. The difference in prevalence of ‘improvement’ (Global Rating of Change ≥ +4) and ‘worsening’ (Global Rating of Change ≤–2) between the experimental and control groups were the primary analyses for the benefits and harms of the intervention.

‘Worst case’ intention-to-treat and ‘complete case’ analyses were performed (Moher et al 2010, Sterne et al 2009). In the ‘worst case’ analysis for benefit, participants who did not return for follow-up were classified as ‘not improved’ if assigned to the experimental group and ‘improved’ if assigned

to control. For harm, 17-AAG ic50 participants who did not return for follow-up were classified as ‘worse’ if assigned to the experimental group and ‘not worse’ if assigned to control. ‘Complete case’ analyses included only participants who completed follow-up. The risk difference (RD) and 95% CI quantified the size of any difference in prevalence of improvement or worsening between the groups. When the 95% CI for a RD did not contain zero, the point estimate for the beneficial or harmful Protein Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor effect was reported as a number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) with a 95% CI. Differences between groups in follow-up scores for neck pain, arm pain, Neck Disability Index, and Patient-Specific Functional Scale were the secondary analyses for the benefits of neural tissue management. Neck pain, arm pain, and Neck Disability Index were analysed with separate

analyses of covariance (ANCOVA). Follow-up scores in each ANCOVA were adjusted by using the baseline score as the covariate (Vickers and Altman 2001). Because Patient-Specific Functional Scale activities were different for each participant, these change scores were analysed with an unpaired t-test. The size of any treatment effect was reported as the difference between group means and a standardised mean difference, each with a 95% CI. The latter allowed a comparison to previously reported treatment effects of neural tissue management (Gross et al 2004). To further aid the interpretation of any treatment effects related to these secondary outcomes Resminostat (Dworkin et al 2009), NNTs with 95% CIs were calculated for the number of participants who achieved clinically important change scores for neck and arm pain (≥2.2 points) (Young et al 2010), Neck Disability Index (≥ 7 points, 0 to 50 scale) (MacDermid et al 2009), and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (≥ 2.2 points) (Cleland et al 2006, Young et al 2010). The characteristics of adverse events related to neural tissue management were reported with descriptive statistics. A risk ratio (RR) with a 95% CI was calculated to determine whether experiencing an adverse event reduced a participant’s chance for being improved at follow-up.