Jahangard 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	4‐week trial with 2 arms Emotional intelligence training (EIT) Treatment‐as‐usual (control group) Duration of trial: 4 weeks Country: Iran Setting: inpatient
Participants	Method of recruitment of participants: inpatients at the Farshchian Psychiatric Center of Hamadan were approached. Sample size: 30 Diagnosis of borderline personality disorder: evaluated with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM‐IV) Means of assessment: Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 3rd edition (MCMI‐III) and a score on the subscale “Personality Disorders” of the MCMI‐III of at least 84. Base rate (cut‐off score) on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Mean age: 24.63 years (range = 18‐35) Sex: 53% female Comorbidity: generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), current substance dependence, and other affective disorders Inclusion criteria Diagnosed with borderline personality disorder with depression by psychiatrists according to DSM‐IV criteria Except major depressive disorder, lack of other axis I psychiatric disorders based on the clinical psychiatric interview such as Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Post‐traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), current substance dependence, and other affective disorders such as bipolar I and II disorders of dysthymia Borderline personality disorder via Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 3rd Edition (MCMI‐III) and score on the subscale ‘personality disorders’ of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 3rd Edition (MCMI‐III) of at least 84 (cut‐off score) Aged 18‐35 No history of previous hospitalisations or treatments Educational level to third grade Exclusion criteria Refusal to participate in emotional intelligence components training or discharge from hospital with personal satisfaction before starting the emotional intelligence training prevention
Interventions	Experimental group Treatment name: emotional intelligence training Number randomised to group: 15 Duration: 4 weeks, at least 3 sessions (45‐minute/session) per week Concomitant psychotherapy: not stated Concomitant pharmacotherapy: at baseline, all had antidepressants (SSRI), and 8/15 had benzodiazepines Control/comparison group Comparison name: control group Number randomised to group: 15 Duration: 4 weeks Concomitant psychotherapy: no psychoeducation, and no instructions in improving emotional intelligence or other interventions, which might be considered as a supportive psychotherapy Concomitant pharmacotherapy: “All patients were pharmacologically treated with SSRIs for depressive disorders, and, if necessary, with benzodiazepines in case of acute sleep difficulties.” (p. 199) At baseline, all had the antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Proportions of participants taking standing psychotropic medication during trial observation period: all took SSRIs, benzodiazepines were taken by 87.5% of the EIT group and 66.7% of the control group (P = 0.44)
Outcomes	Secondary Depression, assessed by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Attrition, in terms of patients lost after randomisation in each group
Notes	Sample size calculation: no Ethics approval: yes Comments from review authors: Information about the randomisation procedure, allocation concealment, missing data and whether or not the outcome assessors were blinded was received by email from Dr Brand.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "We used a simple sample random software: http://www.secutrial.com/blog/2012/05/21/randomisierungen‐in‐ secutrialr/". (Jahangard 2012) [pers comm]
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "patients got codes known only to the study supervisor not otherwise involved in the assessment or intervention". (Jahangard 2012) [pers comm]
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Raters of the outcome variables were unaware of patients' group allocations".(Jahangard 2012) [pers comm]
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "All patients sticked on the study conditions, accordingly, we had no missings".(Jahangard 2012) [pers comm]
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: Outcomes were identical in protocol and publication. However, in the protocol primary and secondary outcomes were stated and not in the publication.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Treatment adherence: no information on treatment adherence was provided. Allegiance bias: no indication of bias Attention bias: no indication of bias Vested interest: no indication of bias