Dunne 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT; “randomly assigned”
Participants	26 patients, aged 20 to 49 years with chronic WAD grade II or III meeting the diagnostic criteria for current MVC‐related PTSD. Participants were excluded if they had (1) cervical spine fractures, (2) serious head injury or burns, (3) previous history of NP or headaches requiring treatment, (4) insufficient comprehension of English to complete measures, or (5) if they were receiving current treatment for a major psychiatric disorder (i.e., psychological or pharmacological treatment). 3 patients were lost at post‐assessment but all subjects were included in the analysis (intention‐to‐treat). The control group was not involve in the follow‐up assessment.
Interventions	CBT treatment (I): 10 weekly 1‐hour sessions of individually trauma‐focused CBT based on the Australian Guidelines for the treatment of PTSD (cognitive strategies, coping self‐talk, cognitive restructuring, psychoeducation, anxiety management strategies and relapse prevention strategies; (n = 13) Reference treatment (R): waiting list control (n = 13)
Outcomes	No significant changes were noted for pain intensity over time or between groups at post‐assessment. Concerning disability (NDI), greater improvements were found for (I) compared to (R) at post‐assessment evaluation; at 6 month follow‐up, treatment effects were maintained for CBT group. Greater reductions were found from pre‐to post assessment for (I) compared with (R) in several subscales of SF‐36, treatment effects were maintained at follow‐up for physical role, bodily pain, general health, social functioning, and mental health subscales. Regarding self‐report mental health measures, improvements were noted in both groups over time; at post assessment there were greater reductions for (I) compared to (R); at 6 month follow‐up, treatment effects were maintained.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions.” Comment: Method of sequence generation is not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described.
Blinding of participants	High risk	No mention about blinding but blinding of participants is not feasible due to the nature of the intervention.
Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Not described.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported measures	High risk	Self‐reported outcome measures were collected with the knowledge of the intervention received since participants were not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3 subjects were lost at post‐assessment (12%); 1 further participant was lost at follow‐up (15%).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All of the outcome measures described in the Methods section are reported in the Results section.
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “Baseline comparisons showed no significant differences between the groups on any variable that may confound the results including sociodemographic variables, medical history, MVC details, average pain intensity, medication use, and self‐report measures.”
Cointerventions (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Not described.
Compliance (performance bias)	Low risk	Quote: “At post‐assessment, 85% of participants in the treatment condition (11 of 13 participants) had completed all 10 sessions.”
Intention‐to‐treat‐analysis	Low risk	Quote: “Treatment effects were assessed using the intent‐to treat sample… Missing data were replaced with the value for that variable at the preceding assessment and as there was minimal missing data findings closely mirrored those for treatment completers.”
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias)	High risk	Quote: “All participants completed a post‐assessment at 10 to 12 weeks after the first assessment session and individuals in the treatment group also completed a 6‐month follow‐up assessment using the same procedure and measures as the initial assessment.” Comment: One of the two groups did not perform follow‐up assessment.