Xiong 2009.

Methods	Two‐armed randomised controlled trial, DMT plus standard care versus control group being standard care (routine medication and psychological support nursing), using a standardised test of depression.
Participants	Setting: China, urban, hospital. 76 patients (33 males & 43 females), mean age 32.26 ± 8.71 yrs. Inclusion criteria: Fits CCMD‐3 (Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Disorders) diagnostic criteria for depression; Joining the study voluntarily with informed consent and is willing to make improvement; Able to attend all sessions. Exclusion criteria: Difficulties with verbal communication; Serious physical illness; Having other serious mental disorders (e.g. schizophrenia). 38 people were randomised to the standard care group (21 women and 17 men) 38 people were randomised to intervention (22 women and 16 men)
Interventions	Group DMT informed by Chace methods, with 8 to 9 people in each group. Four‐phase session included: warm‐up; body extension (to connect with psychological function); creative section (to include connection with other group members and expression of inner states); relationship experience. The therapy was conducted by a qualified rehabilitation nurse who had also received further professional training (the national secondary qualification of psychological counselling). The treatment lasted for 4 weeks, 5 sessions per week (Monday to Friday), 2 hours for each session, over a 4 week period. All received standard care. Control group was standard care, which consisted of medication and nursing psychological support.
Outcomes	All outcomes shown are for the post‐intervention scores. Primary outcome measure: 24‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM‐D). No other measurements noted and no follow‐up data was reported beyond the end of treatment. Continuous outcome: HAM‐D at 4 weeks (end of treatment): Intervention: mean: 10.13; SD:± 3.20 (n = 38) Control: mean 17.20; SD: ± 8.34 (n = 38) Dichotomous outcome: Number of people with remission or improvement at end of trial Remission (defined as ≥ 75% reduction on HAMD); Intervention, N = 13, Control, N = 9 Significant Improvement (defined as 50% to 74% reduction on HAMD); Intervention, N = 21, Control, N = 14 Modest Improvement (defined as 25% to 49% reduction on HAMD) Intervention, N = 2, Control, N = 6 Recovery (defined as Remission + Improvement (significant)) Intervention, data from trial report given as 89.47% Control, data from trial report given as 60.53%, Chi² = 8.48, P < 0.05
Notes	Initial data extraction kindly provided by Lufia Chen, with full translation by Dr. Li Weixiao.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The authors do not say how randomisation was achieved.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Authors did not adequately report on allocation methods.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	It is not possible to blind participants for this kind of activity and so this item must be considered high risk.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information is given on who conducted the assessment..
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The authors state that there were no drop‐outs.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The protocol is not available, but all expected outcomes are reported (Higgins 2011, Section 8.5.c)
Other bias	High risk	A lack of information about treatment fidelity combined with a low level of therapist training (nursing plus counselling).