Puskar 2003.

Methods	Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: yes
Participants	Description: targeted Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: RADS ≥ 60.0 What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: N/A Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current or previous depression: not undertaken Baseline severity of depression: RADS: 70.3 (mild)   Mean age: 16.0 Age range: 14.1 to 18.3 Percentage male: 18.0% Setting: school   State what psychiatric diagnoses were excluded: exclusion criteria not specified Suicide risk excluded: exclusion criteria not specified 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: Teaching Kids to Cope Number of sessions: 10 sessions Length of sessions: 45 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 7.5 hours Duration of treatment period: 10 weeks Group size: unclear Delivered by: mental health experts Fidelity: assessed as adequate Type of comparison: TAU. No further description provided.
Outcomes	Diagnosis: N/A Name of self‐report depression measure: RADS Name of clinical report depression measure: N/A Name of anxiety measure: N/A Name of general functioning measure: N/A Assessment points: post‐intervention, 12 months (medium‐term)
Notes	Author contacted for methodological detail: no Author contacted for treatment manual: yes (not provided) Author contacted for outcome data: no
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"... equal allocation using permuted block randomization within school sites..." (p.74)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information specified
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects	High risk	The nature of the trial suggests it is unlikely participants could have been blind to the fact they were allocated to treatment as usual. 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	All outcomes self‐reported. Assessor blinding therefore not applicable.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Proportion of participants with incomplete post‐intervention self‐reported depression scores: 7.9% Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: observed cases Intention‐to‐treat analyses: repeated measures analysis using mixed modelling methods
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	High risk	Trial conducted by those who developed the intervention
Implementation integrity	Low risk	Implementation integrity assessed: yes Implementation integrity adequate: yes Implementation integrity reported: yes