Diamond 2002

Methods	Methodological quality: low 1. Randomisation method: adequate 2. Dropouts: numbers, and reasons in each group were described; intention‐to‐treat analysis performed 3. Outcome assessment: a. Assessors: patients are not blinded to treatment status, partly self‐report b. Measures: clearly defined and valid c. Follow‐up duration: appropriate ‐ six months after treatment end 4. Baseline characteristics: reported, and not comparable (discrepancy BDI) 5. Entry criteria: inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined
Participants	32 adolescent patients (aged 13‐17) with DSM‐III‐R major depressive disorder, recruited from schools and through parents. Inclusions: had a primary caretaker who was willing to participate in treatment, BDI‐score>17. Exclusions: reporting of other problems primary, already receiving antidepressant medication or psychotherapy, reporting of >13 days of substance use in the previous 90 days, needing a higher evel of care or meeting other exclusion criteria. Four doctoral‐level and two master's level therapists, who received training and weekly supervision.
Interventions	RCT to compare two conditions. The experimental intervention involved 12 sessions of 60‐90 minutes. T(n:16) = attachment‐based family therapy (ABFT) ‐ specific treatment tasks; relational reframe task, adolescent alliance‐building task, parent alliance‐building task, attachment task, promoting task. C(n:16) = waiting list.
Outcomes	1. Measures a. The School Age Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, Present and Lifetime Versions (K‐SADS‐P/E) b. Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM‐D) c. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) d. Self‐Report of Family Functioning (SRFF) e. Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment f. Beck Hopelessness Scale g. State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children: A‐trait (STAIC) h. Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire i. Youth Self‐Report 2. Follow‐up times Assessments on four occasions: at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and at follow‐up (6 months posttreatment). T superior over C on depression symptom level, trait anxiety, and family conflict.
Notes	Non‐compliance: T&C = 4/16 No integrity check
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment?	Unclear risk	B ‐ Unclear