| Methods |
Randomised controlled trial |
| Participants |
32 participants with DSM‐IIIR PTSD (11 men, 21 women) in Australia |
| Interventions |
8 sessions EMDR (n = 17) vs 9 sessions TFCBT (n = 15) in parallel. |
| Outcomes |
BDI, SCL‐90 Global distress, CMS, IES, PSS‐SR, PTSD Interview (DSM‐III‐R) |
| Notes |
Therapists were appropriately trained and experienced. Treatment adherence was measured. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
High risk |
Quote: "Participants were assigned to their experimental group using a stratified randomization technique: the first 10 referrals were assigned to the TTP condition (after a 50% chance of either TTP or EMDR) and the following 10 were assigned to the EMDR condition. This was done in order to consolidate therapist skills in each protocol and offset cross‐pollination of the two, different, therapeutic protocols. Subsequently, subjects were assigned alternatively to the two conditions until a full cohort was obtained in each condition." |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Comment: It is unclear whether any measures were in place for concealing allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Comment: Only the data of completers were included in analyses. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Comment: All specified outcomes were reported. |
| Other bias |
High risk |
Comment: There were differences in the baseline characteristics of the two groups, for example, medication profiles (which were continued through the course of the trial). |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Comment: Participants were aware of their allocation. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Comment: It is unclear whether outcome assessors were blinded. |
