Hogberg 2007.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	24 transportation workers with DSM‐IV PTSD (19 men, 5 women) in Sweden.
Interventions	EMDR (n = 13) vs waitlist (n = 11)
Outcomes	GAF, HAM‐A, HAM‐D, IES, BAI
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 "The randomisation was done by picking a sealed ballot in the presence of a research nurse who coordinated the study and followed the participants through all phases."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: The method of random sequence generation was not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "We decided not to use an intention to treat analysis because there were no drop‐outs during EMDR". Comment: 2 individuals dropped out of the waitlist group.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: All specified outcomes were reported.
Other bias	High risk	Comment: Small sample size.
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: "by a psychiatrist not otherwise engaged in the study and blind to the experimental condition of the participants."