Rose 2014.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: yes (specifically, PIR component)
Participants	Description: universal Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: N/A 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: CDI: 8.2 (sub‐threshold) Mean age: 12.2 Age range: 9‐14 Percentage male: 56.0% 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: Australia
Interventions	Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: yes Online: no Name of programme: RAP plus Peer Interpersonal Relatedness (PIR) Number of sessions: 20 sessions Length of sessions: 50 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): 16.7 hours Duration of treatment period: 20 weeks Group size: 6 to 12 Delivered by: students Fidelity: assessed as adequate Type of comparison: AP
Outcomes	Diagnosis: established from scores on the major depression subscale of the DISCAP Name of self‐report depression measure: CDI and RADS‐2. Scores on the CDI will be extracted in preference in the present review. 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 and approx. 9 months (medium‐term)
Notes	Author contacted for methodological detail: no 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)	Unclear risk	"...randomly assigned..." (p.512) Method of randomisation not specified, however
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information specified
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Subjects	Low risk	The nature of the trial suggests it is likely participants could have remained blind to the fact they were allocated to a placebo 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	Diagnostic interviews were "...administered by a senior clinical psychologist who was unaware of the experimental conditions" (p.513). However, primary outcomes are 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: 1.4% (for RAP‐PIR and control groups) Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: hierarchical linear modelling which the authors explain "...can accommodate missing data..." (p.514) Intention‐to‐treat analyses: N/A
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	High risk	Trial conducted by those who developed the PIR intervention
Implementation integrity	Low risk	Implementation integrity assessed: yes Implementation integrity adequate: yes Implementation integrity reported: yes