Jaberghaderi 2004.

Methods	Randomised trial of EMDR vs CBT
Participants	Included (n = 16) Sixth grade girls 12 to 13 years of age from an urban school in Iran who reported contact sexual abuse occurring ≥ 6 months previously Excluded Girls subjected to ongoing abuse Setting University clinic, Iran
Interventions	CBT (n = 8) Sessions focused on skill development and exposure and were limited to 45 minutes, with a maximum 12 and a minimum 10 sessions. Treatment was terminated earlier if the Subjective Units of Distress score was between 0 and 2 and abuse‐related anxiety symptoms were 25% or less. Homework followed all sessions (a total of 10 to 15 hours) and included checklists, drawings and listening to tapes of the exposure narrative. Parents attended a psychoeducation session within the first 2 weeks EMDR (n = 8) Focus on the identified trauma memory was not as strict as with the CBT group. The EMDR therapist was allowed to treat spontaneous trauma memories that arose during work with the index trauma but was not allowed to systematically work through all trauma memories. The maximum 12 sessions (with no minimum) were limited to 45 minutes each, but most lasted approximately 30 minutes. Homework was minimal and was limited to drawing a ‘safe place’ on 1 occasion. Treatment was terminated earlier if the Subjective Units of Distress score was 0 to 2 and positive self statements were 6 or 7 on a 7‐point scale related to the abuse. Parents attended a psychoeducation session within the first 2 weeks Therapists Each treatment was manualised. Therapists were clinical psychologists experienced in working with children and trained in the respective therapies
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Child Report of Post‐Traumatic Symptoms (26‐item) Rater: child Scale: Parent Report of Post‐Traumatic Symptoms (32‐item) Rater: parent When Post therapy
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomised by picking names out of a hat
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias	Unclear risk	Blinding was not possible, but both groups received a psychological therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Child‐ and parent‐reported outcomes were used
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Completer analysis reported. Loss to follow‐up: 13%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias was apparent