Four participants were lost to post-intervention measures at 8 weeks: two each from the experimental group and the control group. An additional four participants were lost to follow-up at 12 weeks: three from the experimental group, and one from the control group. There was one notable violation of the trial protocol. One participant Decitabine manufacturer was randomly allocated to the experimental group but ended up in the control group within 10 min of allocation because of an error. It is not clear how this error occurred because the allocation process required a member of the research team to ring an independent person for each participant’s allocation schedule.

The independent person was then responsible for opening an envelope and reading its content. The contents of the envelopes were checked on completion of the trial and were correct. Either the independent person responsible for opening the participant’s envelope PD0332991 wrongly read the contents of the envelope to the member of the research team, or the member of the research team misheard the participant’s allocation. Regardless, the error was made at random within 10 minutes of allocation.

This participant’s data were included in the control group according to the recommendations of others about acceptable deviations for intention to treat analyses (Hollis and Campbell 1999, Fergusson et al 2002). This made minimal difference to the baseline characteristics of each group, as presented in Table 2 (see eAddenda for Table 2.) Also, as a precaution all analyses were performed two more times; once with this participant’s data included in the experimental group and once with this participant’s data excluded altogether. else There was minimal difference in any of the three sets of analyses on any outcome. Therefore, only the original set of analyses with the participant’s data included

in the control group is reported here. The other two sets of analyses are presented in Table 3 (see the eAddenda for Table 3.) The study protocol dictated that all participants in the control and experimental groups be given advice and adhere to an exercise program. The participants did not accurately record adherence to the exercise program despite our best efforts to encourage this. Our impression is that some diligently adhered to the exercise program and others did not, as typically occurs in clinical practice. Importantly, there was no indication from the diaries that there was a systematic difference between the adherence to the exercise program of the experimental and control participants. Similarly, compliance by experimental participants with the splinting regimen was poorly recorded with only 14 of the 19 participants providing data.