Deblinger 2011.

Methods	Randomised trial of trauma narrative therapy + trauma‐focused CBT vs trauma‐focused CBT
Participants	Included (n = 210) Children 4 to 11 years of age referred for verified contact sexual abuse with ≥ 5 PTSD symptoms, including 1 from each cluster. Mean age: 7.7 years. Female: 96/158 at follow‐up. Caucasian 103, African American 22, Hispanic 11, other 22 Excluded Children with an IQ < 70, with continued unsupervised face‐to‐face contact with perpetrator or with parent who had a serious medical or mental health illness that would impact participation Setting New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA
Interventions	Trauma‐focused narrative therapy + CBT (n = 104) As for CBT + children, were encouraged to develop a detailed trauma narrative about the sexual abuse, which they processed and reviewed with the caregiver and therapist Trauma‐focused CBT (n = 106) Included psychoeducation and parenting, relaxation, affective modulation, cognitive coping, in vivo exposure, enhanced safety and future development, delivered as 8 or 16 weekly conjoint parent/child sessions of 90 minutes each. Mean number of sessions attended: 7.36 and 13.92, respectively Therapists Therapists had graduate degrees in psychology, clinical social work or a related field with ≥ 3 years of clinical experience. They were supervised weekly, and adherence to inclusion or non‐inclusion of trauma narrative was checked
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School‐Age Children ‐ Present and Lifetime version (K‐SADS‐PL) Rater: clinician administered individually to child and parent Depression Scale: Children's Depression Inventory (27‐item) Rater: child Anxiety Scale: Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (39‐item) Rater: child Behaviour Scale: Child Behavior Checklist (120‐item) Rater: parent rating When Post therapy and at 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐up
Notes	Data for 8‐ and 16‐week groups were pooled
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Children were randomised to groups, but 17 siblings were allocated to the same intervention as the first randomised sibling
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias	Unclear risk	Both groups were given a psychological therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	'The project coordinator who was blind to assignment conducted assessments'; however, most scales were child‐reported or parent report
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	ITT analysis was used, but follow‐up means and SDs were reported. Loss to follow‐up: 25%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias was apparent