Damra 2014.

Methods	Randomised trial of trauma‐focused CBT vs no treatment in children who had been physically abused
Participants	Included (n = 18) Physically abused children who were referred by local community organisations and other local child protection institutes. Mean age: 11.3 years. Female: 0. Types of trauma: All had undergone physical abuse (most within 4 to 6 months before therapy) and had clinical symptoms of PTSD and depression for ≥ 5 weeks before. treatment. Mean PTSS‐C: TF‐CBT 23.66, control 24.55 (moderate to severe range) Excluded Not stated Setting Child care unit at Institute for Family Health (Jordan 2012)
Interventions	Trauma‐focused CBT (n = 9) Trauma‐related cognitions and feelings, along with skills training. Parents also received ‘Better Parenting Skills Education’. Ten sessions of 60 minutes (90 minutes for 2 Better Parenting sessions) for children and parents over 2 weeks Therapists Two qualified and accredited registered child counsellors who had previous experience working with abused children and had attended 6 days of TF‐CBT training. Counsellors were supervised for every session and via meetings or email. Sessions were directly monitored by the supervisor Control (n = 9) No treatment
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Post‐Traumatic Stress Symptoms in Children (PTSS‐C; 30‐item) Rater: child/adolescent Depression Scale: Children’s Depression Inventory (27‐item) Rater: child/adolescent When Post treatment and at 4‐month follow‐up
Notes	PTSD symptom data were not added to meta‐analyses because the effect sizes were several times higher than the overall estimate and contributed substantial heterogeneity
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	Control group appears to have been given no treatment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Self report measures were used, and participants probably realised whether or not they were receiving treatment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Follow‐up appears to have been 100%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not identified
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comparison between groups not explored