Jia 2005.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blinding: not addressed Location: inpatients, China Length of follow‐up: 8 weeks
Participants	Diagnosis: schizophrenia (CCMD ‐ 3/DSM ‐ IV) N = 60 Sex: 44 M, 16 F Age: mean ˜ 22.1 years, SD ˜ 3.98 years Included: length of illness: mean ˜ 2.04 years, SD ˜ 1.16 years; 15 ‐ 35 years old; participants able to give signed, informed consent; stable condition with current antipsychotics use; no aggressive action, participants with consistent hallucination, delusion, and volitional behaviour disturbance Excluded: participants who are with organic brain disease or had received CBT therapy; participants who were addicted to alcohol or had drug abuse
Interventions	1. CBT group*: N = 22 Content: rational thinking training, help for the participants to realise their inappropriate cognition, behavioural training, diary and health education Delivered by: not stated Frequency: once or twice per week for 8 weeks Treatment duration: 8 weeks 2. Standard care group: N = 38 Content: standard psychiatry nursing care, emotional support and health education Delivered by: not reported Frequency: not reported Treatment duration: 8 weeks
Outcomes	Mental state: clinically important change (no improvement)**; general, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, hallucinations, delusions (PANSS) Unable to use: Mental state: excitement, cognition, passive/apathetic social withdrawal, disturbance of volition, lack of judgement & insight (PANSS item scores) ‐ not validated item scores
Notes	*Participants in the CBT group also received the standard care intervention. **Defined as reducing rate of PANSS score < 25%
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Participants were randomly assigned..." (p.10) Comments: insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of 'Low risk' or 'High risk'
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: The method of concealment was not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comments: The author did not address this information. However, participants and personnel were not likely to be blinded because participants in the treatment group received CBT, and the control group only received standard care.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comments: The method of blindness was not described.
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