Morey 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	design: parallel‐arm, randomised controlled trial
Participants	sex: 13/16 females (81.3%) age: mean age 31.1 years location: USA setting: outpatient exclusions: active psychosis, history of schizophrenia, substance intoxication or withdrawal level of functioning/severity of illness: no further information BPD diagnosis according to: DSM‐IV means of assessment: DIPD‐IV, PAI‐BOR
Interventions	group 1: MACT (6 weekly sessions centred on chapters of a patient workbook) group 2: MACT+TA (6 weekly sessions centred on chapters of a patient workbook; initial session also included an individualised collaborative assessment with development of questions the client would like to "ask the test data" about themselves and the articulation of specific, individualised treatment goals; during second session, therapist and client discussed assessment results and motivational feedback was given; apart from these augmentations of the first two sessions, identical treatment as other group duration: 1,5 months concomitant psychotherapy: no other psychosocial interventions allowed concomitant pharmacotherapy: psychotropic medication allowed 56% were taking at baseline
Outcomes	outcomes considered in this review self‐rated: observer‐rated: BPD severity (PAI‐BOR‐total), affective instability (PAI‐BOR‐A), suicidality (PAI‐BOR‐SI), parasuicidality (PAI‐BOR‐S), interpersonal problems (PAI‐BOR‐N), identity disturbance (PAI‐BOR‐I) time‐points used here: 1,5 months (i.e. post‐treatment)
Notes	analyses: ITT (completers case analysis also available but not used here)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"[...] assessments [...] were conducted by an independent evaluator" (Morey 2010, p. 533)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No indication for selective reporting, but Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'Yes' or 'No'.
Treatment adherence?	Low risk	"Consenting clients in both conditions were assigned to a project therapist, who worked under the supervision of the primary investigator." (Morey 2010, p. 532)
Allegiance effect improbable?	Low risk	No indication given.
Attention bias: equal amounts of attention to all groups (obligatory treatment components)?	Low risk	Beyond TA (which was the point of question of the trial), both groups received comparable amounts of attention.