Turner 2000.

Study characteristics
Methods	design: randomised controlled trial
Participants	sex: 19/24 females (79.2%) age: 22 years on average location: USA setting: outpatient exclusions: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, organic mental disorders, mental retardation level of functioning/severity of illness: BPD diagnosis according to: DSM‐III‐R means of assessment: DIB, PDE
Interventions	group 1 (EG1): Dialectical Behavior Therapy‐oriented treatment (i.e. individual DBT‐oriented psychotherapy plus six group sessions with focus on significant persons in patients' natural environments; DBT modifications were the following: First: psychodynamic techniques were incorporated to conceptualise patients' behavioural, emotional, and cognitive relationship schema; second, there was no DBT skills group, but skills were provided during individual therapy) group 2 (EG2): Client‐centered Therapy (CCT; i.e. two weekly individual sessions when possible; six group sessions with focus on significant persons in patients' natural environments (same as EG patients received) duration: 12 months concomitant psychotherapy: no details concomitant pharmacotherapy: pharmacotherapy was not included in the study treatment regimens; at baseline, 19 patients were out of 24 reported taking prescribed psychotropic medications
Outcomes	outcomes considered in this review self‐rated: anger (TBR‐anger), impulsivity (TBR‐impulsiveness), suicidal ideation (BSS), parasuicidality (TBR‐frequency of parasuicide), depression (BDI), anxiety (BAI) observer‐rated: dissociative/psychotic symptoms (BPRS) time‐points used here: 12 months, i.e. post‐treatment
Notes	analyses: ITT
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Following the initial assessments, patients were randomly assigned to either DBT or CCT. " (Turner 2000, p. 415) No further details.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Next, patients were sequentially assigned to a mental health clinician." (Turner 2000, p.415). No further details. 24 participants were randomly assigned to either DBT (N = 12) or CCT (N = 12). In spite of drop‐outs from treatment (DBT: N = 4, CCT: N = 6), assessments were available for all 24 participants at all times of assessment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The outcome evaluation consisted of independent assessor ratings and patient self‐report. The independent assessor was unaware of the patients' treatment condition but was aware of the purpose of the study." (Turner 2000, p. 415)
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	"The investigator and the senior clinic therapist monitored adherence to the treatment protocols. Both supervisors met with the therapists weekly in two separate group supervision meetings. Therapists presented audiotapes of their previous sessions with patients during supervision." (Turner 2000, p. 415)
Allegiance effect improbable?	Low risk	No indications for allegiance effect given.
Attention bias: equal amounts of attention to all groups (obligatory treatment components)?	High risk	More attention paid to EG2 (CCT) participants.