Daeppen 2007.

Methods	Parallel RCT: brief alcohol intervention versus control with assessment versus control without assessment. ITT: unclear.
Participants	Setting: Switzerland, emergency department. Participants: ≥ 18 years who were admitted to emergency department for an injury; excluded if history of alcohol‐related treatment over the last 12 months, or clinically intoxicated, or medical condition that precluded a face‐to‐face interview, or if not qualifying as hazardous drinker over the last 30 days. Number randomised = 987; 78% male; mean age = 36.7 years. Baseline data not reported for total sample.
Interventions	Participants were screened with a 10‐item lifestyle questionnaire including three alcohol‐related questions. BAI and CA groups received a 30 minute assessment. Brief Alcohol Intervention (BAI) group (N = 310) received a single motivation style brief intervention session lasted approximately 15 minutes and covered six steps: (1) to thank the participant for participation and provide reassurance about confidentiality; (2) to provide feedback about participant’s alcohol use compared to similar measures for men and women in the Swiss community and ask the participant’s opinion of the feedback; (3) to ask the participant to explore the pros and cons of their alcohol use; (4) to use a 1 to 10 scale to explore participant’s importance and readiness to change their drinking patterns; (5) to ask if the participant feels ready to set an objective and provide positive reinforcement about the ability to achieve this objective; and (6) to give each participant written material, including their AUDIT score, drinking pattern percentiles compared to the Swiss community and their drinking pattern objectives. Control with assessment (CA) group (N = 342) received assessment and "usual care" (not defined). Control no assessment (C) group (N = 335) received "usual care" only.
Outcomes	Per cent hazardous drinkers, mean number of days drinking per week in previous 12 months, mean number of drinks per occasion in last 12 months, mean number of binge drinking occasions per month in last 12 months, mean number of drinks in last seven days, mean AUDIT score, mean SF‐12 score (mental and physical). Assessed at 12 months.
Funding source	Funded by grant no. 3200–067949 of the Swiss National Science Foundation. The Swiss National Science Foundation is the government agency funding scientific research in Switzerland.
Declaration of interests	Not reported.
Notes	Loss to follow‐up: BAI: 74/310 (24%). CA: 65/342 (19%). C: 78/335 (23%).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Each participant was randomised and assigned to experimental or control group based by block of ten participants on a computer‐generated allocation method" (p. 1226).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described.
Blinding of treatment providers	High risk	"A group of five female and two male research assistants were recruited and selected to do the screening, assessment and BAI at baseline, depending on their ability to apply research procedures and to conduct BAI... Research assistants conducted the motivational style BAI right after the assessment" (p. 1228).
Blinding of participants	Low risk	"One of the goals of the trial was to blind subjects assigned to the control groups to minimize possible intervention effects. The subjects in both control groups were told that the trial focused on general health behaviours, including alcohol use" (p. 1228).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Research assistants at follow up were blinded to the participant assignment, and because this interview conducted no evaluation of the BAI they were unaware from which group the participants came" (p. 1228).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Loss to follow‐up reported but reasons not reported by arm.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes specified in methods are reported.