Tabaeian 2010.

Methods	Design: RCT, parallel group
Participants	Country: Iran Setting: outpatient clinics Sample size calculation: not reported Sample size: 45 Sex: 100% = boys Age: not reported (based on the educational system in Iran, it should be eight to 10 years old) Ethnicity: reported as Iranian without other information Socioeconomic status: not reported IQ: not reported ADHD diagnosis: not reported ADHD medication: all participants (100%) were taking methylphenidate during the study. Comorbidity: children with comorbidity were excluded. Medication of comorbid disorders: not relevant Inclusion criteria: males school grade 3th‐4th problem with social skills normal or higher than normal intelligence level child had ADHD Exclusion criteria: comorbidity Baseline assessment: not reported
Interventions	45 participants allocated to one of three groups*. Number of participants in each group not reported Group one (n = 15*): social skills training, which involved directly training students in the following: eye contact skill, verbal communication, emotions, causes of expressing emotions, setting the emotions, problem‐solving. Consisted of 10 sessions, each lasting 90 minutes with 15 minutes rest and refreshments 40 minutes from start Group two (n = 15*): social skills training + parent training. Focus on understanding ADHD, listening to the child, eye contact, interaction, supporting expression of emotion, parent interaction and family interactions. Consisted of 10 sessions, each lasting 90 minutes and with a 15‐minute break Group three (n = 15*): no training Attendance: not reported *the number of participants in each group was not described explicitly but it is assumed that the participants were distributed equally
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Social skills*: Peer relationship subscale, child‐rated General behaviour*: "Accepted social behaviour" subscale, child‐rated Secondary outcomes Core ADHD symptoms*: Impulsivity subscale, child‐rated *the specific assessment instrument was not possible to confirm based on the description and references in the paper and extracted Outcome assessment: post‐intervention
Notes	Study ID: no information Sponsorship source: no funding reported Year conducted: 2010 Duration of the study: 10 weeks Comments: this extraction was based on extraction made by Ghasaleh Aali based on the Persian paper. Lead author's name: SR Tabaeian Institution: University of Isfahan Email: r.tabaeian@yahoo.com Address:
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: 2 centres randomly selected and participants randomly assigned to groups. How this randomisation was done, however, was not stated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: not described. We contacted the corresponding author for more information but did not receive a reply.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: not described but, based on the intervention, we judged that blinding was not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: it was not clear what measure was used and if it was possible to blind the assessors. It seemed likely that it was a questionnaire, either for the child or the parents, and that it was not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: none reported. There were no dropouts.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol available. Based on the translation, it was difficult to identify the measure used and judge the appropriateness of the reported outcomes.
Vested interest bias	Unclear risk	Comment: funding source not reported
Other sources of bias?	Low risk	Comment: none reported