Chen 2015.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blinding: not reported Location: inpatients, China Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Diagnosis: schizophrenia with auditory hallucination N = 50 Sex: 30 M, 20 F Age: mean ˜ 36.7 years, SD ˜ 8.5 years Included: length of illness: mean ˜ 5.32 years, SD ˜ 4.63 years; hallucinations not relieved after receiving medication for at least 2 months; the total score of PANSS ≥ 3; be able to understand and cooperate with the clinicians; give informed consent to proposed treatment Excluded: not reported
Interventions	1. CBT group*, N = 25 Content: The content of CBT was not stated. The dosage of risperidone in the CBT group was 1/3 amount of which was used in antipsychotics control group; benzodiazepines and antan could be used when necessary. Delivered by: not reported Frequency: A 40‐minute CBT was conducted weekly in the first month, twice per month in the third and fourth months and once per month in the fifth and sixth months. Treatment duration: 6 months 2. Standard care group: N = 25 Content: Risperidone was titrated from 1 mg/day to 4 ‐ 6 mg/day, the dose of risperidone was adjusted by the participants' response. Delivered by: not reported Frequency: not reported Treatment duration: 6 months
Outcomes	Global state: CGI score (severity scale) Mental state: general , positive symptoms score, negative symptoms score, affective symptoms (PANSS scores); hallucinations (AHRS score) Adverse events: general (TESS score) Quality of life: various specific aspects (SQLS scores)
Notes	*Participants in CBT group also received the standard care intervention.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Participants were randomly assigned..." (p.2063). Comments: No details of the randomisation procedure were provided. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'Low risk' or 'High risk'
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: The author did not describe allocation concealment. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'Low risk' or 'High risk'
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comments: The author did not describe the blinding of participants and personnel. However, as the CBT was based on standard care, participants and personnel were not likely to be blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comments: The author did not describe the blinding of outcome assessment. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'Low risk' or 'High risk'
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comments: no attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comments: All measured outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Comments: none obvious. The study funded by scientific project funding from Department of Science and Technology of Shandong province (112).