Terlecki 2011 VOLUNTARY.

Methods	Design: RCT Follow‐up: 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months Attrition: 16%
Participants	Mean age (years): 20.12 Sex: 61% male N participants: 132 voluntary students Allocation: n = 67 intervention; n = 65 control Setting: college; heavier drinkers Country: USA
Interventions	Programme type: brief motivational interviewing Set‐up: single individual session Key components: The intervention covered the following topics in each session: evaluation of typical drinking patterns as recorded on the alcohol monitoring and baseline assessments of drinking behaviour; comparison of typical patterns of alcohol use and perceived norms to actual campus norms of same‐age peers; review of the biphasic effects of alcohol; personalised review of drinking consequences; and placebo and tolerance effects of alcohol Duration: 50 min Control: assessment only
Outcomes	Outcomes: harmful and hazardous drinking; physical dependence on alcohol (family history of alcohol problems, history of conduct disorder, and personal drinking history); alcohol‐related negative consequences; average weekly drinking frequency and quantity over the last month; drinking behaviour in terms of quantity and frequency of their alcohol consumption on a typical occasion and peak drinking occasion within the past month Measures: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; Alcohol Dependence Scale; the Brief Drinker Profile; Rutgers Alcohol Problem Inventory; Daily Drinking Questionnaire; Quantity/Frequency Index
Funding and Declared Conflicts of Interest	Funded by NIAAA. No information about potential conflicts
Notes	Marked baseline differences between intervention and controls for alcohol problems
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were assigned to treatment conditions using a computer‐based urn randomisation to ensure matching on sex and current Greek membership status
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Attrition not directly indicated but possibly around 16%; missing data at the 12‐month follow‐up assessment did not significantly exceed the projected 30% (32% was missing) and as a result, missing outcome data were not imputed for any follow‐up assessment period to protect the integrity of the analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All pre‐specified outcomes are reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to blind participants to intervention. Study interventionist was not blind to treatment assignment or study hypotheses
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Unit of Analysis issues	Low risk	Not applicable