Knaevelsrud 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Sample size: 159 Diagnosis: DSM‐IV PTSD Method of recruitment: advertisements and presentations at department of defence sites Method of diagnosis: PDS used to identify if participants reported the minimum number of symptoms required by DSM‐IV for each of the symptom clusters (at least 1 intrusion, 3 avoidance, and 2 hyperarousal symptoms). Minimum score of 11 on the PDS required. Trauma type: war related Age (mean): interapy: 29.11 (SD 8.20) years; wait list: 27.15 (SD 6.48) years Sex: interapy: 60 women (79%); wait list: 55 women (69%) Location: Iraq Comorbidities: unclear Adjunctive therapy: excluded Adjunctive medication: unclear Unemployment: interapy: 26 (33%); wait list: 29 (36%) University education: interapy: 56 (71%); wait list: 38 (48%) Exclusion criteria: currently receiving treatment elsewhere; substance abuse or dependence; high risk of suicide; psychotic symptoms; low symptom severity Baseline PDS scores (mean): interapy: 30.87 (SD 8.13); wait list: 31.81 (SD 7.13)
Interventions	Internet programme based on trauma‐focused CBT versus wait list Experimental arm Interapy Duration: 5 weeks Treatment protocol 2 weekly structured writing activities assigned each week over period of 5 weeks. 3 treatment phases: self‐confrontation with the traumatic event, cognitive restructuring, and social sharing. Type of contact: short homework reminder by e‐mail, if no response contacted by phone; exact method of communication unclear. Automated contact: unknown, not reported Type of therapist: native speaking psychotherapists Treatment fidelity: weekly supervision sessions, either face‐to‐face or via Skype Comparator arm Duration: 6 weeks Treatment protocol: participants were on a wait list for 6 weeks and then received the intervention. Therapist contact: none
Outcomes	PDS; HSCL‐25; EUROHIS‐QUOL
Notes	Funding source: unclear Declarations of interest among the primary researchers: unclear
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomisation was based on a computer‐generated randomisation list."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "researchers and psychotherapists were not masked to the intervention."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: self‐reported measures
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	ITT analysis BUT missing data > 30%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol available (Registered Trial (p.2) – Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry) and the published reports included all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified.
Other bias	Low risk	Study appeared free from other sources of bias.