Hensel‐Dittmann 2011.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	28 asylum seekers who had experienced war and torture
Interventions	Narrative Exposure Therapy (n = 15) vs Stress Innoculation Therapy (n = 13)
Outcomes	CAPS, HAM‐D
Notes	Experienced therapists delivered therapy and treatment adherence was assessed
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Subjects were randomly assigned to either NET or SIT. Participants were matched pairwise according to gender, age, and region of origin and were then allocated to NET or SIT by flipping a coin."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: There is no mention of any measures taken to conceal allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Aiming at an intention‐to‐treat analysis, all subjects who were randomised were included in the outcome analysis. Much of the recent literature indicates that last‐observation‐ carried‐forward procedures may produce seriously biased results. Hence we used mixed effects models." Comment: There were 3 drop‐outs from TFCBT and 2 from non‐TFCBT.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: All specified outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: There were no other obvious sources of bias.
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	Low risk	Quote "We aimed to keep the assessors blind to the treatment conditions of the subjects; however, occasionally the treatment condition was revealed to the rater by responses from the patient."