Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|

Psychological intervention/comparison | Outcomes | Assumed risk—control group(s) | Corresponding risk—intervention group(s) | Number of participants (studies) |

1) Cognitive behavioural ‘ Nutritional intervention plus behavioural management training compared with nutritional intervention alone’(children aged 4–12 years, group setting) | Secondary:Total calories consumed per daypost-intervention | The mean ranged across control groups from 1316 to 2315 calories. | The mean in the intervention groups was 275.8 calories higher (66.65–485.05 higher) | 82 (3 studies) |

Change in calorie intakepre and post treatment | The mean ranged across control groups from 303.9 to 489 calories | The mean in the intervention groups was 364.06 calories higher(191.99–536.13 higher) | 82 (3 studies) | |

Percentage of estimated energy requirements (%EER)post intervention | The mean in the control group was 127% | The mean in the intervention group was 21% higher (7.76–34.24 higher) | 67 (1 study) | |

Change in %EERpre and post treatment | The mean of change in the control group was 27% | The mean of change in the intervention group was 21% higher (9.22–32.78 higher) | 67 (1 study) | |

2) Cognitive ‘ Decision aid for patients considering lung transplantation compared with usual care’(patients with advanced CF considering referral for lung transplantation, individual setting) | Secondary:Participants’ knowledgefour-item questionnaire (range 0–4) 3-week follow-up | The mean score of participants’ knowledge in the control group was 1.974 | The mean score of participants’ knowledge in the intervention group was 0.98 higher (0.66–1.31 higher) | 149 (1 study) |

Participants’ knowledge—change in knowledgeweek 3—baseline | The mean in the control group was 0.3 | The mean in the intervention group was 0.94 higher (0.53–1.35 higher) | 149 (1 study) | |

Patient expectationstwo-item questionnaire (range 0–2) 3-week follow-up | The mean in the control group was 0.58 | The mean in the intervention group was 0.73 higher (0.51–0.95 higher) | 149 (1 study) | |

Patient expectations—change in expectation scoreweek 3—baseline | The mean in the control group was 0.05 | The mean in the intervention group was 0.66 higher (0.37–0.95 higher) | 149 (1 study) | |

Decisional conflict—total scorerange 0–100 (low decisional conflict to high decisional conflict) 3-week follow-up | The mean in the control group was 20.4 | The mean in the intervention group was 8.8 lower (13.7–3.9 lower) | 149 (1 study) | |

3) Other interventions ‘ Biofeedback-assisted breathing re-training compared with biofeedback-assisted relaxation training’(individuals with CF; 10–41 years; individual setting) | Primary:Pulmonary function—FEV_{1} expressed in litres | The mean in the control group was 0.78 | The mean in the intervention group was 0.54 higher (0.15–0.93 higher) | 24 (1 study) |

Pulmonary function— forced expiratory flow 25%–75% expressed in litres per second | The mean in the control group was 1.39 | The mean in the intervention group was 0.67 higher (0.1–1.24 higher) | 26 (1 study) | |

4) Other interventions ‘ Massage therapy compared with bedtime reading control’(children and adolescents with CF aged 5–18 years; individual setting) | Primary:Pulmonary function—peak expiratory flow rateFollow-up day 30 | The mean in the control group was 244 | The mean in the intervention group was 53.9 higher (43.27 lower to 151.07 higher) | 20 (1 study) |

Parent anxiety—State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; range 0–80; higher scores=more anxiety) | The mean score in the control group was 40 | The mean in the intervention group was 9.1 lower (17.84–0.36 lower) | 20 (1 study) | |

Child anxiety—State Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC; ranges from 0 to 80 with a higher score reflecting more anxiety) | The mean child anxiety score in the control group was 32.9 | The mean child anxiety score in the intervention group was 8.2 lower (12.36–4.04 lower) | 20 (1 study) |

This table is based on a Cochrane Review published by Goldbeck

*et al*.4The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CF, cystic fibrosis.