Study	Reason for exclusion
Abbott 2009	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: High drop‐out (50%)
Andersson 2002	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: High drop‐out (51% in the CBT group)
Davies 1995	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: High drop‐out (43.33%)
Delb 2002	ALLOCATION: Not randomised
Goebel 2000	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTION: Not CBT
Henry 1998	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTION: CBT OUTCOME: No usable data. No primary outcome
Hiller 2004	ALLOCATION: Inadequate randomisation, as patients with severe tinnitus (Tinnitus Questionnaire score > 40) were allocated to CBT and those with lower scores to the Tinnitus Education group. The randomisation was then done for receiving (or not) noise generators.
Jakes 1986	ALLOCATION: Not randomised
Jakes 1992	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: High drop‐out (44.8%)
Kaldo 2008	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTION: Internet CBT versus CBT. Not an appropriate comparison for this review.
Kröner‐Herwig 1999	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: High drop‐out (39.53%)
Kröner‐Herwig 2006	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTION: Cognitive behavioural tinnitus coping training (TCT) versus Habituation‐based Training (HT) OUTCOME: This study looks at possible predictor factors in the participants from another already published 3‐arm trial (Zachriat 2004) which was already included in this review. Not an appropriate comparison for this review.
Lindberg 1987	ALLOCATION: Not randomised
Lindberg 1988	ALLOCATION: Not randomised
Lindberg 1989	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTIONS: Not CBT
Robinson 2008	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: High drop‐out (37%)
Sadlier 2008	ALLOCATION: Not randomised
Scott 1985	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTIONS: Not CBT
Wise 1998	ALLOCATION: Randomised PARTICIPANTS: Patients with tinnitus INTERVENTIONS: Not CBT