Sethi 2010.

Methods	Design: RCT Conducted by the team who developed the intervention: no
Participants	Description: targeted Cut‐point for inclusion for indicated studies: not specified What risk was basis of inclusion for selected studies: mild to moderate depression according to DASS‐21 scores Diagnostic interview to exclude those with current and/or past episodes of depression: those with past episodes of depression not excluded, however, those with current depression, as indicated by extremely high scores on the DASS‐21, were excluded Baseline severity of depression: DASS‐21‐d: 18.20 (moderate) Mean age: 19.5 Age range: 18 to 23 Percentage male: 21% Setting: university State what psychiatric diagnoses were excluded: exclusion criteria not stated Suicide risk excluded: exclusion criteria not stated Parents with history of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder excluded: exclusion criteria not stated Country: Australia
Interventions	Broad category: CBT (for further information on intervention components, see Table 3) Manualised: N/A as MoodGYM freely available to access Online: yes Name of programme: MoodGYM Number of sessions: 3 sessions plus 2 assessment‐only sessions Length of sessions: between 20 to 40 minutes Intensity (total number of hours): up to 3.33 hours Duration of treatment period: 3 weeks Group size: N/A (individual‐based intervention) Delivered by: N/A (self‐monitoring) Fidelity: online, therefore standardised Type of comparison: NT
Outcomes	Diagnosis: N/A Name of self‐report depression measure: DASS‐21‐d Name of clinical report depression measure: N/A Name of anxiety measure: DASS‐21‐a Name of general functioning measure: N/A Assessment points: post‐intervention
Notes	Author contacted for methodological detail: no Author contacted for treatment manual: N/A as MoodGYM freely available to access Author contacted for outcome data: no
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information specified
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 remained blind to the fact they were allocated to a non‐treatment 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	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: 0% Means and SDs used in meta‐analysis based on what data: observed cases Intention‐to‐treat analyses: N/A as 0% dropouts
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	Low risk	Trial not conducted by those who developed the intervention
Implementation integrity	Low risk	Implementation integrity assessed: N/A (standardised) Implementation integrity adequate: N/A Implementation integrity reported: N/A