| Methods |
Randomised controlled trial |
| Participants |
60 16‐ to 25‐year old female victims of various traumas. 77% DSM‐IV PTSD in the USA |
| Interventions |
2 usually weekly sessions of EMDR (n = 30) vs active listening (n = 30) |
| Outcomes |
BDI, STAI, PENN, IES, TSCS |
| Notes |
Experienced therapists (volunteers) delivered therapy. It is unclear whether or not treatment adherence was assessed. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Quote: "Envelopes filled with papers labelled either EMDR or AL were shuffled and numbered 1 through 100. During each interview, envelopes were opened consecutively". |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Quote: "Envelopes filled with papers labelled either EMDR or AL were shuffled and numbered 1 through 100. During each interview, envelopes were opened consecutively". |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Comment: Reasons for drop‐out were not fully reported (1 participant from AL, 1 from EMDR) . Only the data of completers are included in the analysis. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Comment: All specified outcomes were reported. |
| Other bias |
High risk |
Comment: It is unclear whether or not treatment adherence was assessed. Active listening was not intended as an effective intervention. The aim was to create a control that offered rapport, expectation of gain and sympathetic attention. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Quote: Comment: Participants were aware of their allocation. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Comment: Insufficient information. |
