Bichescu 2007.

Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial
Participants	18 former political detainees under communist Romania, living at home Diagnosis: PTSD on 2 occasions 1 year apart; no signs of disability on MINI Method of diagnosis: CIDI (Composite International Diagnostic Interview, WHO 1997) Age: mean 69 years Sex: 94% men, 6% women Location: Romania
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to: 1. Experimental arm Duration: 5 2‐hour sessions Treatment protocol: narrative exposure (NET) Therapist: Romanian‐speaking female PhD psychology student; therapy in own language 2. Comparator arm Duration: 1 session Treatment protocol: psychoeducation (PED); "standardized treatment" Therapist: Romanian‐speaking female PhD psychology student; therapy in own language
Outcomes	Time points for assessment: pretreatment and at 6‐month follow‐up Assessment language: Romanian; measures translated as necessary Primary outcome Symptoms of PTSD (CIDI) for diagnosis and symptom count, no information about validation Secondary outcome Depression (BDI) through interview with translation from English
baseline characteristics	Mean number of mistreatments 13; no detail Mean of 42 years since release from imprisonment; mean duration of imprisonment 6 years Education, occupational status and marital status recorded
adherence and completion	All 18 completed treatment and follow‐up
Notes	Date of study: 2003 Funding source: Hans‐Böckler Foundation and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Declarations of interest among primary researchers: no declaration Assessment by clinical psychology and MA psychology students who were intended to be blind to treatment, which was not entirely successfull
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	By "random selection procedure of participants' name‐cards": unclear who performed selection
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to render participants nor practitioners blind to allocation. Expectations of benefit not assessed
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Most blind assessors were arranged, but "it was not possible for us to achieve complete blindness in all cases," as participants revealed details of treatment that identified the condition
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants included: no attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	2 measures used and reported; no protocol available
Therapist allegiance	High risk	Allegiance to NET
Treatment fidelity	Unclear risk	No information
Therapist qualifications	Unclear risk	In training
Other bias	Unclear risk	Real‐time translation of assessment measures, so not standardised