Amaro 2009.

Methods	Design: RCT Follow‐up: 3 and 6 months Attrition: 15.8% ‐ 3 months; 16.9% ‐ 6 months
Participants	Mean age (years): 20.4 Sex: 71% male N participants: 265 Allocation: n = 133 intervention; n = 132 control Setting: university students mandated for alcohol or drug violation (higher risk) Country: USA
Interventions	Programme type: motivational interviewing, University Assistance Programme (UAP) Set‐up: 2 individual sessions with UAP counsellor (3 sessions for serious offenders) Key components: feedback of assessment results: BMI incorporating motivational interviewing and skills training. For additional social, personal or adjustment issues: solution‐focused therapy, stress management, supportive counselling, coping skills‐based interventions Duration: not stated Control: standard care service offered by the university. First offenders (n = 66) completed a 2.5 h web‐based alcohol education programme, more serious offenders completed a series of 3 sessions plus 1.5 h educational group session focusing on the consequences of alcohol use.
Outcomes	Outcomes: total weekly consumption; total weekend consumption; total weekday consumption, BAC; heavy episode drinking; consequences of alcohol; coping skills; use of protective behaviour Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Quantity and Frequency Index; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; Coping Skills Scale; Use of Protective Behaviors Scale
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest	Research funded by the NIAAA. No information about potential conflicts of interest
Notes	Results not in suitable format for MA; author contacted for further information
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a judgement "Participants were randomized to one of two interventions conditions . . ."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	16.9% attrition and ITT analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Not all alcohol outcomes reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Insufficient information to make judgement about blinding of therapists
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a judgement
Unit of Analysis issues	Low risk	Not applicable