Belsky 1994.

Study characteristics
Methods	CCT. Pilot study that assessed the effects of self‐hypnosis on psychological and physiological functioning of children ages 7 to 18 years with CF. Hypothesis: hypnosis is associated with enhanced performance on clinical rating criteria and with improved scores in self‐concept and other psychological tests. The study used a pre‐ and post‐test design with control group and repeated measures.
Participants	12 children with CF ages 7 ‐ 18 years attending a local CF clinic. Population of interest: 30 (met eligibility). Number included: 12. Control group: 5 girls and 2 boys.
Interventions	The parents and children in the experimental group had three appointments within a 2‐week period during which time the children were taught a hypnotic technique. The hypnotic induction is described in detail in the article.
Outcomes	CF illness ratings: Shwachman‐ Kulzcycki system standard form has been completed by the physician at baseline, which is based on 100 maximum points measuring four categories: general activity, physical examination, nutrition, and radiographic findings. Other illness variables included each patient's average PEFR, height, weight, and number of hospital admissions during 2 years prior to the study. Parents' measures: 'Impact on Family Scale' (measures family functioning); 'Child Behavior Checklist' (parents' perception of behavioral problems and competencies); rating of the parents' assessment of the child's illness; parents also provided a record of school days missed by their child for 3 years before the pretest. Children's measures: LOC was assessed with the Nowicki Strickland (1973) LOC for Children and with the Children's HLOC (Parcel & Mayer, 1978) which is a 20‐item area specific measure of expectancies regarding locus of control and prediction of health‐related behavior. Self‐concept was assessed with the Piers Harris Children's Self‐Concept Scale (1964). Anxiety was assessed with the STAIC (Spielberger 1973).
Notes	None of the authors could be contacted for questions on provided data.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	The 2 groups were not randomised. The authors stated that "2 groups were formed on the basis of comparability of age and clinical ratings" (Belsky 1994, p. 284).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Because groups were not randomised, participants and/or investigators enrolling participants could probably foresee assignment.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding of participants and personnel providing the intervention was not possible. The authors provided no information on blinding of outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information on dropouts were provided by the authors.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The number of participants for post‐intervention analysis were not mentioned. Outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a an analysis (N, means and standard deviations for some of the outcomes).