Total Recovery was measured similarly in all previous studies. We found a total
recovery rate of 18.3%, compared to 23% (Knoop, et al., 2007a), 24% (Deale, et al., 2001),
and 22% (White et al., 2013) respectively. Factors such as patient selection and the use of
manualised protocols may have affected the minor differences in outcomes between the
present study and the randomised controlled trials. Nevertheless, all in all, the recovery rates
found in these studies were comparable.