Cimini 2009.
Methods |
Design: RCT Follow‐up: 6 months Attrition: 31% |
|
Participants |
Mean age (years): not stated; college students Sex: 62.2% male N participants: 685 Allocation: not reported Setting: college campus with students mandated for alcohol violation Country: USA |
|
Interventions |
Programme type: motivational interviewing Set‐up: group single session Key components: discussion focused on evaluation of alcohol consumption and associated problems Duration: 2 h Control: alternative intervention |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes: peak number of drinks on 1 occasion; average number of drinks per week; alcohol problems Protective behavioural strategies (possible mediator) Measures: Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; Protective Behaviors Strategies Scale |
|
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest | Funded by NIAAA. No information or declarations about potential conflicts of interest | |
Notes | No significant effects of intervention found, but insufficient information to include in meta‐analysis. Authors contacted for further information on group size, means and standard deviations for all outcomes | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to make a judgement |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | 31% attrition |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All expected outcomes were reported |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Insufficient information to make a 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 |