Farkas 2010.

Methods	Randomised trial of motivation‐adaptive skills‐trauma resolution + EMDR vs wait list
Participants	Included (n = 65) Traumatised adolescents with conduct problems in Youth Protective Services reporting traumatic events with high impact on the Lifetime Incidence of Traumatic Events questionnaire. Participants were French‐speaking and 13 to 17 years of age; 25 were female. Participants were exposed to a mean 4.4 types of trauma Excluded Adolescents with psychosis, suicidal or mentally retarded Setting Youth Protective Services in Quebec, Canada, 2005 to 2006
Interventions	Motivation ‐ Adaptive Skills ‐ Trauma Resolution (MASTR) + EMDR (n = 33) Consisted of 12 weekly individual sessions. Sessions 1 to 4 aimed to establish rapport, assess history, identify goals, visualise a positive future and develop a case formulation and treatment plan. Sessions 5 to 8 covered self management skills, avoidance of high‐risk situations and imaginal rehearsal of behavioural choices. Sessions 9 to 12 were devoted to trauma resolution by EMDR. A manualised EMDR protocol with minor age‐appropriate modifications was used. Participants in the MASTR‐EMDR group continued to receive other types of therapy. Participants attended a mean 11 sessions over 8 months Wait list control (n = 32) Among the wait list group, 57% received another form of therapy and attended a mean 17 sessions over 8 months Therapists EMDR was provided by 2 licenced master's‐level therapists who together had 30 years of experience working with youth, had completed EMDR training and received ongoing supervision from the developer of MASTR. Treatment fidelity (of a random selection of 30% of sessions) was assessed as 94%
Outcomes	PTSD diagnosis Scale: Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Rater: not clear, appear to have been research assistants PTSD symptoms Scale: Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC; 54‐item) Rater: adolescent Anxiety Scale: TSCC Rater: adolescent Depression Scale: Child Behavior Checklist (118‐item) Rater: parent When Post therapy and at 3 months
Notes	Although participants in the MASTR‐EMDR group continued to receive other types of therapy, this was not described
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	High risk	Participants probably were aware of whether they were in the wait list or therapy group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Research assistants were not 'consistently blind to the treatment condition', and measures were self reported or parent reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Only data available for the 40 participants assessed post treatment and at 3 months follow‐up were reported (loss to follow‐up: EMDR 42%, control 34%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	High risk	Twice as many males (48% vs 26%) were included; more came from low‐income families in the control group (75% vs 41%). Nearly twice as many had received a diagnosis of PTSD (37% vs 19%), and PTSD symptoms were greater (6.4 vs 3.7) in the treatment group