Wang 2015.

Methods	Design: RCT
Participants	Setting: emergency department of a hospital Type of trauma exposure: severe MVA survivors. Patients were suspected to have experienced possible severe injuries that required specialised acute medical care. Inclusion criteria: aged 18–65 years, and able to communicate in verbal and written Chinese. Exclusion criteria: history of neurological problems, brain surgery, brain damage and spinal cord injuries; current alcohol or drug abuse (or both), and current or past schizophrenic or psychotic disorders. Sample size: 76 individuals assessed for eligibility; 52 randomised. Mean age: 40.3 (SD 14.8) years, based on available data from 46 completers. Gender: 19 (41.3%) men; 27 (58.7%) women, based on available data from 46 completers. Ethnicity: not reported but likely to be Chinese. Country: China
Interventions	Group 1: creative arts: n = 26 Intervention delivered in small groups of 4–6 participants in hospital led by a psychologically trained and supervised artist. The primary modalities utilised were creative writing and drawing. Participants were offered 8 weekly 40 min sessions. In the first 2 weeks, participants were requested to perform simple drawing techniques. Weeks 3–5 explored present emotions and issues. Final sessions focused on bringing together resources for moving forward. Group 2: waiting list: n = 26
Outcomes	PTSD: CAPS; IES‐R Other: HADS (depression and anxiety); PTGI Follow‐up: 2, 6 and 12 months
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were asked not to share information to the assessors to ensure that they were blind to interventions.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Completer‐only analysis, although follow‐up data was available for all participants at 2‐month follow‐up and the majority of participants at subsequent follow‐ups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No study protocol identified. The study authors reported no statistically significant differences between intervention and controls, which meant that it was not possible to include this study in meta‐analysis. This has the potential to lead to an overestimate of effectiveness for those outcomes.
Other bias	High risk	Intervention was not manualised so it could not be guaranteed that the therapy was delivered in the same manner to all of the participants. Sample size was small.