Chanut 2007.

Methods	Pilot RCT.
Participants	51 offenders convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). Canada.
Interventions	MI (n = 24) vs psycho‐education (n =27).
Outcomes	Physiological primary: None. Non‐physiological primary: Heavy drinking days (>6 units/day) and AUDIT. Secondary: Service utilization. Follow‐ups were at 3 months and 6 months.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Urn randomisation ("Un protocole de randomisation par urnes assisté par ordinateur (Project MATCH Research Group, 1993) a été utilisé pour assigner les participants à l'une des deux conditions.").
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Patients and providers	Unclear risk	Blinding of providers was not possible, but participants could have been blinded.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors	Unclear risk	It is not stated whether assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Attrition was 22% at 3 months and 29% at 6 months. Balanced across groups. Reasons for loss to follow‐up not reported. Use of ITT was reported but it is unclear whether all reported analyses used ITT.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The published report included all expected outcomes based on the stated hypotheses.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Used collaterals to verify self‐report. There were baseline differences in days of hazardous drinking and the Drug Abuse Screening Test.