Taylor 1998.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial.
Participants	Participants: families of 3 to 8 year old children with conduct problems. Sex: 107 mothers, 70 fathers. Age of parents: mean 33 years, mothers; mean 37 years, fathers. Unit of allocation: individual family. Number randomised: 110* (46 'Parents and Children Series' parent programme; 46 Eclectic programme; 18 wait‐list control). Number used in analysis: n=32 (15 intervention; 17 control) for 'depressive' symptoms; n=17 (7 intervention; 10 control) for 'partner satisfaction'. Country & setting: USA; single‐site; recruited from community settings; intervention delivered in an outpatient clinic. Inclusion criteria: families who contacted the Regional Family Centre for assistance related to conduct problems of 3 to 8 year old children, or to difficulties in parenting a child of this age. Exclusion criteria: not stated. Ethnicity: not stated. Baseline characteristics: (108 participants): 69 married or common‐law couples, 38 single mothers; 1 father.
Interventions	Three conditions: 'Parents and Children Series' (Webster‐Stratton) parent programme; Eclectic Programme (delivered individually); wait‐list control. Duration of intervention: 11 to 14 weeks. Length of follow‐up: 4 months.
Outcomes	Depressive symptoms (Back Depression Inventory). Partner satisfaction (Dyadic Adjustment Scale).
Notes	*Some families served initially as wait list controls and then were randomly assigned to either of the two interventions, based on need. We analysed results from 15 families who received the PACS intervention and were directly compared to the 17 families who were assigned to the wait list control group and did not receive the intervention at any stage (p. 288 'Assignment to treatment conditions and Table 1 p. 233).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Trial investigators report "families who were potential wait‐list candidates were randomly assigned to either of the two treatments or to the wait‐list control group, while families who had no possibility of wait‐list were randomly assigned between the two treatments" (page 228). Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants	High risk	Review authors judge that it would not be possible to fully blind participants in this type of study, and found no indication of any specific additional measures taken to reduce the risk of bias that might result from differential behaviours by participants.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Personnel	High risk	Review authors judge that the design of the study means personnel would be aware which participants had been assigned to the immediate intervention conditions.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	High risk	Trial investigators report" research assistants who collected post‐test assessment measures were not informed of treatment assignment, although on occasion families revealed which treatment they received" (page 230). Review authors considered that the blinding of the outcome assessors was therefore compromised.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Intention to treat analyses were performed for those families who attended at least one treatment session. Two participants of 46 (4%) in the PACS group and 2 of 46 (4%) in the eclectic treatment group attended no treatment sessions. Investigators report that "the design of the study did not allow for all comparison to be done simultaneously in a single analysis because the wait‐list control group was comparable only to a sub‐sample of each of the two treatments. For this reason, each hypothesis was tested separately, using only those participants relevant to hypothesis" (page 231). Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Review authors judge that the published report includes all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified.
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.