Li 2006.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Country: China Diagnostic tool: Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD‐3) criteria for AN No. screened: No detail No. randomised: No detail No. started trial: No detail No. dropped out during intervention: No detail No. dropped out during follow‐up: No detail No. analysed (observed case): Total: 42; FT + DT: 21; DT: 21 Mean age in years (SD): Total: 41.3 (18.5); FT + DT: 40.1 (20.3); DT: 38.7 (20.5) Age range in years: Total: No detail Gender %: No detail Subtype purging %: 42 Subtype restricting %: No detail Age of onset: No detail Duration of illness: FT + DT: 5.6 (2.4); DT: 5.4 (3.0) Baseline weight: FT + DT: 34.8 (2.8); DT: 34.8 (2.9) Baseline BMI: No detail Baseline eating disorder scale score: No detail Baseline eating disorder scale score: No detail Baseline purging: No detail Comorbidity, HAMD: FT + DT: 29.2 (4.7); DT: 29.0 (4.9) Details on living arrangements: No detail Family education/employment/income: No detail Recruitment strategy: Recruited from inpatients, no further information Exclusion criteria: Education level < senior high school; Serious disable or organic disease
Interventions	Setting of care: Inpatient and 1‐year follow‐up as outpatient after discharge Training/qualification of care provider(s): Professionally‐trained psychiatrists Treatment manual: Unclear. "The treatment was structured", no further information Supervision of treatment: No detail Adherence to treatment: This was assessed, but results not reported Intervention group 1 Description: Family therapy + drug therapy: Citalopram (20 mg ‐ 60 mg/day) Length: 60 min, 6 sessions on average; 12 weeks Intervention group 2 Description: Drug therapy: Citalopram (20 mg ‐ 60 mg/day) Length: 12 weeks
Outcomes	Behavioural indices Weight Relapse General Psychopathology and Obsessionality HAMD (Hamilton 1960)
Notes	Foreign‐language article. Screened and data extracted by researcher outside of the main review team. Data extracted by only 1 researcher
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Participants were randomised according to the order of their hospital admission, no further information about randomisation method
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No detail
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Therapists and participants cannot be blinded in trials of family‐based therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No detail
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No detail
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The paper describes a method, LOWE, to judge the efficacy of the treatment but the results are not reported. Interview records and other psychiatric evaluation results not reported at baseline. Additional medicine used for sleeping disorders was not reported. No useable data
Other bias	Low risk