Konstenius 2010.

Methods	Double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Relapse prevention trial Stastitical analysis: ITT
Participants	n = 24 amphetamine‐dependent outpatients (DSM‐IV) with ADHD, abstinent for a minimum of 2 weeks Mean age: 37.4 years Gender: 18 men Race: African‐American: NR, Caucasian: NR, Other: NR Employed: 5 History: days of methamphetamine use during past month: NR, lifetime methamphetamine use: 13.9 years Route of methamphetamine use: NR
Interventions	Two parallel groups: 1. Methylphenidate 18 to 72 mg qd (flexible posology), N = 12 2. Placebo, N = 12 + individual skills training program (12 sessions) Duration: 12 weeks Single site (Sweden)
Outcomes	Amphetamine use assessed with two‐times‐weekly UA Sustained abstinence (defined as at least 3 weeks of continuous abstinence) Retention in treatment Craving Depressive symptoms assessed by means of BDI‐II Anxiety symptoms assessed by BAI Dropouts due to adverse events
Notes	Author's affiliation: university Co‐funding: public and private Assessment of compliance: pill count
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Ranzomisation performed with Trombul software
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation done by an independent pharmacist. Randomisation list was kept at the pharmacy until the end of the trial and was collected and opened thereafter
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	Unclear risk	Given that the studied intervention has powerful behavioural effects, it is likely that blinding was broken, which could have yielded to the provision of additional interventions, depending on the treatment the participant was receiving
Blinding (detection bias): Subjective measures Subjective measures	Unclear risk	It is unclear whether blinding can be achieved when the study medication with powerful behavioural effects (methylphenidate) is compared with placebo
Blinding (performance bias): Subjective measures	Unclear risk	Given that the studied intervention has powerful behavioural effects, it is likely that blinding was broken, which could have yielded to the provision of additional interventions, depending on the treatment the participant was receiving
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Objective measures except retention in treatment or dropout Objective outcomes	Unclear risk	Moderate attrition in both study groups (globally 29%). Missing outcome data not balanced in numbers across intervention groups. Reasons for missing data across groups not reported. Imputation by worst case scenario
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Subjective measures Subjective measures	Unclear risk	Moderate attrition in both study groups (globally 29%). Missing outcome data not balanced in numbers across intervention groups. Reasons for missing data across groups not reported. Imputation methods not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The report includes expected outcomes (current controlled trials)
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias