Kemp 2010.

Methods	Randomised trial of EMDR vs wait list
Participants	Included (n = 27) Children 6 to 12 years of age admitted to a hospital emergency department after a motor vehicle accident, and scoring ≥ 12 on the Child Post‐Traumatic Stress – Reaction Index,  or with ≥ 2 DSM‐IV criteria for PTSD. Mean age: 8.93 years. Female: 12. Mean time since accident: 8.35 months Excluded Children taking psychotropic medication; those with a concurrent psychological condition, with history of sexual or physical abuse or neglect, with head injury with persistent associated neurological dysfunction or scoring < 12 on the Glasgow Coma Scale Setting Not reported, Australian study
Interventions	EMDR (n = 14) Four 60‐minute sessions over 6 weeks included client history and assessment, engagement and orientation to EMDR, assessment of target traumatic memory and desensitisation, instillation, body scan and closure Wait list control (n = 13) Received EMDR after 6 weeks Therapist All sessions were delivered by the same doctoral level psychologist, who had received advanced EMDR training. Fidelity was rated as acceptable to highly acceptable by an experienced child clinical psychologist with advanced EMDR training
Outcomes	PTSD symptoms Scale: Child Post‐Traumatic Stress ‐ Reaction Index Rater: child, parent Scale: Impact of Events Scale (IES) Rater: parent Anxiety Scale: State Trait Anxiety Inventory Rater: child Depression Scale: Children’s Depression Scale Rater: child Behavioural problems Scale: Child Behavior Checklist Rater: parent When Post therapy and at 3 and 12 months, but the wait list group received therapy after 6 weeks; therefore, only post‐treatment data can be used
Notes
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	Quite probable participants were aware of whether they were in the therapy or wait list group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	All measures were self reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Loss to follow‐up was 11%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	High risk	More females were included (9 vs 3) and IES scores (34.64 vs 22.33) were significantly higher in the wait list group