Tuikington 2002.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blinding: assessors blind Location: six sites in UK (Belfast, Glasgow, Hackney, Newcastle, Southampton, and Swansea) Length of follow‐up: 1 year
Participants	Diagnosis: schizophrenia (ICD‐10) N = 422 Sex: 325 M, 97 F Age: mean ˜ 40.47 years Included: not reported Exclusion criteria: participants who were deteriorating and who needed inpatient care or intensive home treatment, primary diagnosis of drug or alcohol dependence, organic brain disease or severe learning disability
Interventions	1. CBT group*: N = 257 Content: assessment and engaging, developing explanations, case formulation, symptom management, adherence, working with core beliefs, and relapse prevention Delivered by: nurses receiving 10 days of intensive training Frequency: six‐hour sessions over a period of two or three months Treatment duration: 5 months 2. Standard care group: N = 165 Content: treatment‐as‐usual Delivered by: not reported Frequency: not reported Treatment duration: 5 months
Outcomes	Global state: relapse Mental state: general (CPRS scores); delusions, hallucination (PSYRATs scores) negative symptoms (NSRS scores), insight (SAI scores), depression (MADRS scores) Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Unable to use: Satisfaction with treatment: participant and carer satisfaction (no usable data) Burden of carer (Burden of Care Questionnaire) ‐ not predefined outcome for this review. Health of Nation Outcome Scale ‐ not predefined outcome for this review
Notes	*Participants in the CBT group also received the standard care intervention.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "A geographically separate worker randomised patients on the basis of computer‐generated numbers in blocks of six." (p.213) Comments: adequate randomisation.
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	Low risk	Comments: Assessors were blinded to randomisation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comments: The author conducted intention‐to‐treat analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comments: All measured outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Comments: none obvious