Liappas 2005 arm A.

Methods	Randomized, single‐blind, comparative trial
Participants	30 people with alcohol dependence of an original group constituted by 60 participants (41 men and 19 women; mean age: 47 years) Inclusion criteria: current DSM‐IV diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence aged 18‐70 years Exclusion criteria: DSM‐IV diagnosis of primary depression; secondary depression was not an exclusion criterion serious physical illness other pre‐ or coexisting major psychiatric disorder, i.e. any psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder other drug abuse, excluding nicotine Participants with bipolar disorder were excluded.
Interventions	Treatment: mirtazapine (30‐60 mg/day, in 1‐2 divided doses per day; 20 participants; 13 men and 7 women) and psychotherapy only psychotherapy (10 participants) Psychotherapy: cognitive behavioural psychotherapy administered in individual sessions and family interventions, twice a week Scheduled duration of treatment: 3 weeks Site: Drug and Alcohol Addiction Clinic, Athens University Psychiatric Clinic, Eginition Hospital, Athens, Greece Setting: inpatients for 1 week, then residential treatment Route of administration: orally Starting dose: information not available Pattern of dose reduction: information not available
Outcomes	Depression: final HRSD score Alcohol dependence: no information available Anxiety: final HRSA score Global assessment: final GAS score Dropouts Adverse effects: data not available
Notes	Baseline characteristics of participants Depression: primary depression (rate of participants): 0% duration: information not available HRSD score (mean ± SD): mirtazepine = 37.9 ± 7.8; controls = 39 Alcohol dependence: drinks per drinking days (mean ± SD): mirtazepine = 27.6 ± 18.5; controls = 22.1, duration (mean ± SD): mirtazepine = 15 years; controls = 14 years, being actively drinking: participants were detoxicated before treatment, length of abstinence: 1 week Anxiety: HRSA score (mean ± SD): mirtazapine = 33.2 ± 12.6; controls = 33. Other psychiatric comorbidity: participants with other mental disorders were excluded. Other substance‐use disorders: participants with substance use disorders were excluded. Other characteristics of study Other pharmacological treatment offered: other pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Funding source: information not available Declarations of interest: information not available Other information In the original study, 60 participants were included into 4 groups: only psychotherapy (20 participants) mirtazapine plus psychotherapy (20 participants) venlafaxine plus psychotherapy (20 participants) Participants but not clinicians were blind to group status In the present meta‐analysis, we divided the control group (only psychotherapy) into 2 smaller groups, and compared these 2 smaller groups to the 2 antidepressants, using 3 subgroups: Liappas 2005 arm A ('Effects of interventions: Antidepressants versus psychotherapy') included 10 participants of the group 'only psychotherapy' and the group 'mirtazapine plus psychotherapy' Liappas 2005 arm B ('Effects of interventions: Antidepressants versus psychotherapy') included 10 participants of the group 'only psychotherapy' and the group 'venlafaxine plus psychotherapy' Liappas 2005 arm C ('Effects of interventions: Antidepressants versus another antidepressant') included the group 'mirtazapine plus psychotherapy' and the group 'venlafaxine plus psychotherapy'
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer random sequence generation was used ("At the end of the first week, individuals were randomly/electronically allocated to one of the three groups").
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer sequence of allocation used.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Single‐blind study ("Patients but not clinicians were blind to group status").
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) objective	Low risk	Single‐blind study ("Patients but not clinicians were blind to group status").
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) subjective	High risk	Single‐blind study ("Patients but not clinicians were blind to group status").
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Dropouts were not included in the analysis due to missing data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement.