Noël 2013.

Methods	Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: no. However, the team were involved in adapting the intervention for this setting.
Participants	Description: targeted Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: ≥ 10.0 on CES‐D What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: living in a rural community Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current or previous depression: those with current depression not excluded. Unclear whether those with past episodes of depression were excluded Baseline severity of depression: CES‐D: 14.9 (sub‐threshold) Mean age: 13.8 Age range: 13 to 15 Percentage male: 0.0% Setting: school State what psychiatric diagnoses were excluded: exclusion criteria not specified Suicide risk excluded: yes Parents with history of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder excluded: exclusion criteria not specified Country: USA
Interventions	Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: yes Online: no Name of programme: Talk 'n' Time Number of sessions: 12 sessions Length of sessions: 90 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 18 hours Duration of treatment period: 12 weeks Group size: 8 Delivered by: non‐mental health experts Fidelity: assessed, but unclear if assessed as adequate Type of comparison: WL
Outcomes	Diagnosis: (no useable data) Name of self‐report depression measure: (no useable data) Name of clinical report depression measure: (no useable data) Name of anxiety measure: (no useable data) Name of general functioning measure: (no useable data) Assessment points: N/A
Notes	Author contacted for methodological detail: yes (not provided) Author contacted for treatment manual: yes (not provided) Author contacted for outcome data: yes (not provided)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"…a random number table [was used]..." (p.11)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"…a research assistant who did not do any of the assessments..." (p.11)
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects	High risk	The nature of the trial suggests it is unlikely participants could have remained blind to the fact they were allocated to wait‐list control group. However, without access to the participant information sheets and PLS, level of blinding cannot be ascertained.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors	Unclear risk	"...a trained interviewer [undertook assessments]..." (p.11) Unclear whether this interviewer was blind to treatment allocation, however
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: the authors state that "[a]pproximately 8 percent of participants dropped out before providing complete data..." (p.1) Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: unclear Intention‐to‐treat analyses: possibly LOCF
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Protocol not available. However, follow‐up data are not reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Trial not conducted by those who developed the intervention. However, intervention was adapted by the author for this setting.
Implementation integrity	Unclear risk	Implementation integrity assessed: yes Implementation integrity adequate: no reported Implementation integrity reported: N/A