Celano 1996.

Methods	Randomised trial of Recovering from Abuse Program vs supportive therapy
Participants	Included (n = 47) Girls 8 to 13 years of age who had experienced sexual abuse within the previous 3 years and had received no previous treatment and their non‐offending female caretaker. Mean age: 10.5 years; African American 75%, Caucasian 22%, Hispanic 3%. Abuse was substantiated by child protection authorities and had been disclosed within 1 to 26 months Excluded Children and/or female caretakers with mental retardation, psychosis or drug addiction Setting Outpatient Child Psychiatry clinic, USA
Interventions	Recovering From Abuse Program (RAP) (n = 25) A structured programme over 8 weekly 1‐hour sessions that used developmentally appropriate cognitive‐behavioural and metaphoric techniques. Issues covered were blame and stigmatisation, feelings of betrayal, traumatic sexualisation, feelings of powerlessness and anxiety and assertiveness skills. Two or 3 sessions were joint sessions with child and caretaker; remaining sessions were split individually between child and caretaker Supportive therapy (n = 22) Eight weekly 1‐hour sessions, primarily covering support education and discussion of child's symptoms, feelings and thoughts. Topics most frequently discussed with children in TAU were abuse‐related symptoms/feelings, other family issues, school issues, mother‐child communication, peer relationships and self esteem issues. Two or 3 sessions were joint sessions with child and caretaker; remaining sessions were split individually between child and caretaker Therapists Therapists for both interventions were 18 female psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and trainees in psychiatry and psychology with prior education and experience in psychotherapy with children. RAP therapists participated in a 3‐hour training session and received weekly supervision in the manualised programme. Trainees providing TAU received 7 weekly supervision sessions highlighting clinical issues relevant to child sexual abuse. Professional clinicians participated in monthly group supervision sessions
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Revised Children's Impact of Traumatic Events Scale (CITES‐R; 77‐item): symptom subscale Rater: child Behaviour Scale: Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): internalising, externalising Rater: parent Function Scale: Children's Global Assessment Scale (C‐GAS) Rater: psychiatrist When Post therapy
Notes	CBCL PTSD subscale scores were also reported, but because these data were skewed, CITES‐R data were used Loss to follow‐up was greater than 40% in the therapy group post therapy for the outcome of function
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias	Unclear risk	Participants could not be blinded, but both groups received a psychological therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Assessment of the C‐GAS was blinded, but the other 2 measures were self reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Completer analysis reported. Loss to follow‐up: 32%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias was apparent