Carrion 2013.

Methods	Randomised trial of Stanford cue‐centred treatment vs wait list in children chronically exposed to violence
Participants	Included (n = 65) Individuals 8 to 17 years of age with a history of exposure to violence but no current exposure to perpetrators of violence and with a non‐abusing caretaker willing to participate. Mean age: 11.56 years. Female: 40%. Ethnicity: African American 50.7%, Hispanic/Latino 40.0%, Pacific Islander 1.5%, mixed ethnicity 7.7%. Type of trauma: All participants reported exposure to ≥ 2 traumatic events. The most common traumas were separation/loss (75.0%), witnessing violence (61.5%), homicide (51.9%), physical abuse (25.0%) and bullying (25.0%). Mean PTSD‐RI scores were 22.70 in the treatment group and 25.80 in the wait list group Excluded Significant medical illness, diagnosis of autism or schizophrenia, history of mental retardation or IQ < 70, substance dependency, lack of proficiency in English Setting 13 urban low‐income schools, USA, 2009 to 11
Interventions	Stanford cue‐centred treatment (n = 38) The primary goal is to empower the child through knowledge of trauma exposure and current affective, cognitive, behavioural or physiological responses. Children and parents learn about how adaptive responses become maladaptive, how to cope with rather than avoid ongoing stress and the importance of verbalising their life experiences. Also included skills training in how to reduce physical symptoms of anxiety, modify cognitive distortions and facilitate emotional expression. The manual also contained pictorial representations to assist the youth with understanding concepts. Therapy was delivered in 15 weekly individual sessions of approximately 50 minutes Two licensed therapists (PhD and MFT) with experience in the treatment of childhood trauma were trained in the cue‐centred treatment protocol over 3 months. Therapists received weekly supervision on the manual, phone consultation and case conferences. Fidelity to the treatment protocol in 25% of randomly selected audiotapes of sessions was assessed by 2 independent research assistants, who rated it as 91.2% Wait list (n = 27) Received cue‐centred treatment 3 months after randomisation
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: UCLA PTSD‐RI for DSM‐IV (48‐item) Rater: child/adolescent Scale: UCLA PTSD‐RI for DSM‐IV (48‐item) Rater: parent Depression Scale: CDI (27‐item) Rater: child/adolescent Anxiety Scale: RCMAS (37‐item) Rater: child/adolescent When Post treatment
Notes	Because loss to follow‐up was greater than 55% overall, only loss to follow‐up data are used in this review
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of participants (performance bias	High risk	Wait list control
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Self report measures used
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	55.4% lost to follow‐up (63% treatment and 44.4% wait list)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol was not identified, but major measures were reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other biases were identified