Heinzerling 2010.

Methods	Double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled clinical trial Stastitical analysis: ITT
Participants	n = 71 methamphetamine‐dependent outpatients (DSM‐IV‐TR) Mean age: 38.4 years Gender: 50 men Race: African‐American: 4, Caucasian: 36, Other: 29 Employed: 54 History: days of methamphetamine use during past month: 9.3 days, lifetime methamphetamine use: 14.5 years Route of methamphetamine use: 49 ip, 17 in, 4 iv, 1 oral
Interventions	Two parallel groups: 1. Modafinil 400 mg qd (fixed posology), N = 34 2. Placebo, N = 37 + CBT + CM (12 sessions) Duration: 12 weeks Multiple site (USA)
Outcomes	Amphetamine use assessed with three‐times‐weekly UA Sustained abstinence (defined as at least 3 weeks of continuous abstinence) Retention in treatment Depressive symptoms assessed by means of BDI‐II Craving Dropouts due to adverse events
Notes	Author's affiliation: university Co‐funding: public and private Assessment of compliance: pill count and self‐report
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	An urn randomisation procedure used
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding (detection bias): Objective measures Objective measures	Low risk	Outcome or outcome measurement was not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding (performance bias): Objective measures	Low risk	Given that the studied intervention has mild behavioural effects, it is unlikely that blinding was broken
Blinding (detection bias): Subjective measures Subjective measures	Low risk	Study medication and matched placebo have identical appearance, and blinding can be achieved when the study medication with mild behavioural effects (modafinil) is compared with placebo
Blinding (performance bias): Subjective measures	Low risk	Given that the studied intervention has mild behavioural effects, it is unlikely that blinding was broken
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Objective measures except retention in treatment or dropout Objective outcomes	High risk	High attrition in both study groups (globally 62%). Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups. Reasons for missing data partially described. No imputation methods used
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Subjective measures Subjective measures	High risk	High attrition in both study groups (globally 62%). Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups. Reasons for missing data partially described. No imputation methods used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	More outcomes present in Clinicaltrials.gov than in the published report. But typical outcomes for those studies are reported
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias