Li 2015a.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blinding: not addressed Location: community care, China Length of follow‐up: 1 year
Participants	Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia (CCMD‐3) N = 100 Sex: 48 M, 44 F Age: 18 ‐ 60 years, mean ˜ 37.3 years, SD ˜ 10 years Included: length of illness: mean ˜ 14 years, SD ˜ 10.9 years; length of illness > 5 years, state of the illness was stabilised and medication was continued, living in community and taken care by at least one of the direct relatives Excluded: mental retardation, serious physical disease, pregnancy or lactation
Interventions	1. CBT group*: N = 48 Content: functional analysis of symptoms and negative behaviour, providing treatment therapy, to help participants to develop positive attitudes, improve cognitive abilities, reduce conflicts with social interaction, improve clinical compliance, reduce negative mood, improve the way of thinking Delivered by: specially trained therapists Frequency: A 50‐minute CBT was conducted twice weekly in the first 6 months, once per week in the next 6 months, with a specialist coming weekly in assistance with the therapies. Treatment duration: 1 year 2. Standard care group**: N = 44 Content: not reported Delivered by: not reported Frequency: not reported Treatment duration: 1 year
Outcomes	Mental state: general (SCL‐90 scores) Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Unable to use: Mental state: depression, anxiety, psychotic symptoms, somatisation, sensitivity of interpersonal relationships, obsessive‐compulsive disorder, hostility, paranoia, phobia (SCL‐90 scores) ‐ skewed data Burden: family burden scale score for relatives of the participant (not predefined outcome for this review)
Notes	*Participants in the CBT group also received the standard care intervention. **The term 'Control' was used for the comparator group with no further details given.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomisation was carried out by using random number table." (p.2) Comments: The investigators described a random component in the sequence generation process.
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: 2 participants in the CBT group and 6 participants in the standard care group dropped out during the study, due to the participants or relatives refusing treatment.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comments: All measured outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Comments: none obvious. The study was funded by Chang Zhou scientific project funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Jiangsu province, no. CS20102013.