NCT00607815.

Methods	Design: parallel group RCT Dates of study: June 15, 2009 ‐ December 27, 2015 Number of study centers and locations: one VA medical center (Cincinnati, Ohio) Recruitment: not reported Study duration: 1 year
Participants	Participants: 79 Age: mean (SD) 30.9 (7.6) overall, 29.5 (7.1) for the CPT group, 32.1 (7.9) for the PCT group Sex: 100% male Baseline CAPS score: mean (SD) 61.8 (13.1) overall, 60.1 (11.6) for the CPT group, 62.4 (14.8) for the PCT group Trauma type: not reported Duration of time since trauma: not reported Comorbid conditions: not reported Diagnostic criteria: SCID and CAPS Inclusion criteria: male combat veteran between 18 and 75 diagnosis of PTSD memory of the trauma able to read/write stable on medication for 3 months Exclusion criteria: psychosis suicidal/homicidal intent alcohol/substance dependence
Interventions	Group I: cognitive processing therapy (CPT) Description: clients learn the skills of recognizing and challenging dysfunctional cognitions related to post‐traumatic beliefs. Delivered by: not reported Number of sessions: 12 weekly sessions Format: individual Group II: PCT Manual/Model: CSP 494 version Delivered by: not reported Number of sessions: not reported Format: individual
Outcomes	PTSD: self‐assessment by PCL clinician‐rated assessment by CAPS Depression: self‐assessment by BDI Anxiety: self‐assessment by STAI
Notes	Unpublished trial. Data was obtained from clinicaltrials.gov and author contact.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Study statistician used a random number generator program (information received via email correspondence with the lead investigator).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Treatment allocation was not known prior to randomization (information received via email correspondence with the lead investigator).
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not feasible in psychotherapy trial
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Patient reported symptoms	High risk	Blinding of participants to treatment allocation was not feasible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Observer rated symptoms	Low risk	Protocol stated that outcomes assessors would be blind to treatment allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Data have not been published and study authors did not respond to requests to confirm numbers given in clinicaltrials.gov. Higher dropout rates in the TF‐CBT arm relative to PCT
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcome measures listed in the study's clinicaltrials.gov trial registration were reported in the publication.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Potential concerns of bias due to investigator allegiance; principal investigator is a developer of treatment under investigation (CPT).