2. Reported treatment quality.
| Treatment content and setting | Treatment duration | Manualisation | Adherence to manual | Therapist training | Client engagement | Sum | |
| Alda 2011 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Ang 2010 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
| Burckhardt 1994 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Castel 2009 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Castel 2012 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Edinger 2005 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Falcao 2008 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 4 |
| Kashikar‐Zuck 2005 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| Kashikar‐Zuck 2012 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| King 2002 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Luciano 2011 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Miro 2011 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Nicassio 1997 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Oliver 2002 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Redondo 2004 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Rooks 2007 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Soares 2002 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Thieme 2003 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Thieme 2006 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| Vlayen 1996 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Wigers 1996 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Williams 2010 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Woolfolk 2012 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Items and scores of treatment quality scale (Yates 2005)
1. Treatment content and setting: 2 ‐ Adequate: a clear rationale for the treatment has been reported along with an adequate description of its content; 1 ‐ Partial: either a clear rationale or a description of the content of the treatment is reported; 0 ‐ Inadequate:neither the rationale for treatment or the treatment content are adequately reported.
2. Treatment duration: 1 – Reported; 0 ‐ Unknown.
3. Manualistion of treatment: 2 ‐ Adequate: there is reference to use of a manual that describes the active components of the treatment of study. If more than one treatment arm, manuals were used for all the appropriate treatments; 1 ‐ Partial:in trials with more than one treatment arm, the use of a manual is described but not for all the treatments that would be expected to be manualised; 0 ‐ Inadequate: no evidence that a manual has been used, but reference is made to various principles.
4. Adherence to the manual: 1 ‐ Adequate: there is evidence that the investigators have checked adherence to the manual during the period of study via direct observations, tape recording or supervisory processes that explicitly state adherence to the manual; 0 ‐ Inadequate: no evidence of adherence checks reported.
5. Therapist training: 2 ‐ Adequate: there is documentation of explicit training for the treatment of the trial; 1 ‐ Partial: the general level of therapist training is reported and is adequate (professionally qualified) but there is no mention of explicit training for the trial; 0 ‐ Inadequate: there is no convincing evidence that the therapists have an adequate level of training (e.g. graduate level) or explicit training for the trial.
6. Client Engagement: 1 ‐ Adequate: documented that evidence of engagement was sought e.g. checks on homework were made, skills practice in sessions; 0 – inadequate: no evidence that checks were made on level of engagement.