Corrigendum

Kerstin Luedtke, Angie Allers, Laura H Schulte and Arne May. Efficacy of interventions used by physiotherapists for patients with headache and migraine—systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia 2015. Epub ahead of print 30 July 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0333102415597889.

The authors have discovered in Table 2, line 4 (Castien et al. 2011; The Netherlands (53)), column 6 (incomplete outcome data) the rating should be “+” instead of “?” and in column 8 (other bias) it should be “?” instead of “−”.

The authors apologize for the error.

Corrected Table 2.

Risk of bias evaluation.

Author; year; country	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Additional comments
Andersen et al. 2011; Denmark (61)	+	?	NA	+	?	+	?	−	Exercises not supervised; how often were exercises really performed?
Bodes-Pardo et al. 2013; Spain (62)	+	?	?	NA	+	+	?	+	Participant blinding not evaluated, can patients detect sham condition?
Carlsson et al. 1990; Sweden (47)	+	?	NA	NA	?	−	?	−	Patient preference: acupuncture or physiotherapy?
Castien et al. 2011; The Netherlands (53)	+	+	NA	NA	+	+	?	?	Patient preference: MT versus usual care
Darabaneanu et al. 2011; Germany (58)	?	?	NA	NA	?	−	?	+	Eight patients per group, groups not randomized
de Hertogh et al. 2009; The Netherlands (59)	+	+	NA	NA	+	−	?	−	Small sample size and losses to follow-up
Demirturk et al. 2002; Turkey (63)	+	?	NA	NA	?	−	?	−	Five out of 35 lost to follow-up
Dittrich et al. 2008; Austria (54)	+	?	NA	NA	?	?	?	−	Small sample size; patient preference?
Foster et al. 2004; US (60)	+	?	NA	NA	?	+	?	−	Calculated sample size not reached
Ghanbari et al. 2012; Iran (55)	+	?	NA	NA	?	?	?	−	Patient preference? Small sample size
Gunreben-Stempfle et al. 2009; Germany (57)	−	−	NA	NA	?	+	?	−	Historical control group; patient preference?
Hall et al. 2007; Australia (64)	+	+	+	NA	+	+	?	+
Jull et al. 2002; Australia (65)	+	?	NA	NA	+	+	?	+
Lemstra et al. 2002; Canada (56)	+	?	NA	NA	+	+	?	+	Patient preference?
Mongini et al. 2008; Italy (67)	+	?	NA	?	?	−	?	−	Reliability of diary-based data?
Mongini et al. 2012; Italy (46)	+	?	NA	?	?	?	?	−	Reliability of diary-based data?
Narin et al. 2003; Turkey (66)	−	−	NA	NA	?	−	?	+
Shin and Lee 2014; Korea (68)	+	?	?	NA	?	?	?	−	Reliability of placebo SNAG?
Sjögren et al. 2005; Finland (69)	+	?	NA	NA	?	?	?	+
Söderberg et al. 2011; Sweden (35)	+	+	NA	NA	?	+	?	−	Patient preference?
Torelli et al. 2004; Italy (70)	+	?	NA	NA	−	−	?	+	Crossover trial; n = 13 lost to follow-up
van Ettekoven and Lucas 2006; The Netherlands (48)	+	?	?	NA	+	+	?	+	Patient preference?
Varkey et al. 2009; Sweden (52)	+	+	NA	NA	+	+	?	−	Patient preference? Baseline differences (pain intensity)
von Piekartz and Lüdtke 2011; The Netherlands (49)	+	+	NA	NA	+	+	?	+	Patient preference?
Ylinen et al. 2010; Finland (51)	+	?	?	NA	+	+	?	−	Patient preference? Baseline differences (pain intensity)
Yousseff and Shanb 2013; Egypt (50)	+	+	?	NA	+	?	?	−	Patient preference?

1: Sequence generation; 2: allocation concealment; 3: participant blinding; 4: therapist blinding; 5: assessor blinding; 6: incomplete outcome data; 7: selective reporting; 8: other risks of bias; +: low risk of bias, −: high risk of bias;?: unclear risk of bias; MT: manual therapy; NA: not applicable; SNAG: sustained natural apophyseal glides; US: United States.