Hollifield 2007.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	84 individuals with DSM‐IV PTSD, various traumas in the USA
Interventions	CBT (n = 28) vs acupuncture (n = 29) vs WL (n = 27) (CBT and WL included in a meta‐analysis).
Outcomes	PSS‐SR, HSCL‐25, Sheehan Disability Scale
Notes	There were no reported assessments of treatment fidelity, and little information about the individuals who delivered the treatments.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “before enrolling participants, 90 study ID numbers were pre‐randomized using a computerized random numbers procedure without restrictions. This allocation procedure was concealed from clinicians.”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “before enrolling participants, 90 study ID numbers were pre‐randomized using a computerized random numbers procedure without restrictions. This allocation procedure was concealed from clinicians.”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: ITT analyses were performed using acceptable methods. Reasons for withdrawal were fully reported (10 from acupuncture, 7 from CBT and 27 from wait list).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: All specified outcomes were reported.
Other bias	High risk	Comment: Each intervention was delivered by a single practitioner. There were no reported assessments of treatment fidelity, and little information about the individuals who delivered the treatments.
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	Self‐report measures only. Quote “The RC collected the data which were concealed from investigator/clinician.”