Pokhariyal 2012.

Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial
Participants	96 survivors of torture: 43 Kenyan torture survivors recruited from People Against Torture or released Kenyan political prisoners and 53 refugees in Kenya under UNHCR refugee programme Diagnosis: none Age: Kenyans mean 36.9 years (SD 11.5); refugees mean 26.7 years (SD 6.5) Sex: Kenyans 81% men, 19% women; refugees 51% men, 49% women Location: Kenya
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to: 1. Experimental arm Duration: mean 5 individual sessions MTP + 5 participants had 1 to 3 sessions CT Treatment protocol: Multi‐sensory trauma processing (MTP) +/‐ conventional treatment (CT) Therapists: members of research team, all experienced and qualified in counselling psychology 2. Comparator arm Duration: mean 9 individual sessions Treatment protocol: conventional treatment (CT) = "eclectic methods of psychotherapy": an assortment of therapeutic techniques with varied or no evidence of efficacy Therapists: members of research team, all experienced and qualified in counselling psychology Interpreted into Kiswahili or Kikuyu for Kenyan participants when necessary
Outcomes	Time points for assessment: pretreatment, post treatment Assessment language: in Kiswahili or Kikuyu for Kenyan participants; some used interpreters Primary outcome Stress State Inventory (SSI) (self‐report) (items on PTSD symptoms) Secondary outcome: none SSI developed for US veterans: no comment on cross‐cultural validity
baseline characteristics	Partial data only Kenyans (N = 26): 18 educated up to secondary level, 7 beyond; 17 married, 6 single, 3 divorced/widowed; 16 Christian, 5 Muslim, 5 other Refugees (N = 30): educated up to secondary level, 10 beyond; 30 married, 17 single, 2 divorced/widowed; 20 Christian, 26 Muslim, 3 other
adherence and completion	27 "excluded for various reasons": 35 Kenyans and 34 refugees completed
Notes	Date of study: not given Funding source: USAID, USIU Declarations of interest among primary researchers: none Kenyan and refugee participants had somewhat different baseline scores and received different doses of treatment, but we combined them for analysis Data were provided individually per subject in tables, so means and standard deviations were calculated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Names of recruits converted to numbers and then "randomly assigned" Kenyans and refugees separately. No further detail
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	Self‐report measure but described as "administered," so unclear
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Only completers analysed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Single outcome measure in trial reported; no protocol available
Therapist allegiance	Unclear risk	No information provided
Treatment fidelity	Unclear risk	No information provided
Therapist qualifications	Low risk	Qualified therapists
Other bias	Unclear risk	Real‐time translation of assessment measures, so not standardised