Deblinger 2001.

Methods	Randomised trial of a CBT group vs a supportive therapy group
Participants	Included (n = 44) Children 2 to 8 years of age referred to the Regional Child Abuse Diagnostic and Treatment Centre. All had credible disclosures of sexual abuse. Mean age: 5.45 years. Female: 27. Ethnicity: white 28, black 1, Hispanic 1, other 6 Excluded Children with, or children of parents with, psychotic disorders, severe developmental delay and/or behaviours that were dangerous to themselves or others Setting Regional Child Abuse Diagnostic and Treatment Centre, USA
Interventions	CBT (21 completers) Therapy consisted of 11 weekly sessions of 1 hour and 45 minutes with children and parents individually and 15 minutes for a joint parent and child activity. Sessions utilised an interactive format and a workbook. Parent sessions assisted parents to cope with their emotions, so they could support their children, provide education about communication skills and teach behaviour management skills. The main objectives were to help children communicate and cope with their feelings, identify okay and not okay touches and learn abuse response skills. An additional 15 minutes was used for a combined mother/child activity Supportive therapy (23 completers) The main objectives of supportive therapy with children were the same as with the CBT group but used a didactic approach. Parent sessions were based on self help models and were less structured than CBT sessions for parents. Eleven weekly sessions of 1 hour and 45 minutes of counselling were provided for children and parents Both Therapists for both groups were checked for adherence and were supervised weekly
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School‐Age Children ‐ Epidemiologic version (K‐SADS‐E) Rater: parent Behaviour Scale: Child Behavior Checklist Rater: parent When Post therapy and at 3‐month follow‐up
Notes	PTSD symptom scores were skewed
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomly determined by computer programme
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias	Unclear risk	Both groups received a psychological therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Both measures were based on parent report
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Data were reported for completing participants, and loss to follow‐up was 30% at all intervals
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias was apparent