De Wildt 2002.

Methods	Multisite RCT (14 sites).
Participants	248 Dutch patients meeting DSM‐IV criteria for alcohol dependence or abuse.
Interventions	1. Acamprosate + MET (n= 86) 2. Acamprosate + CBT (n= 78) 3. Acamprosate (n= 77).
Outcomes	Physiological primary: GGT. Non‐physiological primary: Number abstinent, number relapsed, time to first relapse, number of abstinent days, rate of continuous abstinence. Secondary: None.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Sealed envelope randomisation with balancing by blocks of 15 was used to obtain equal numbers of patients per treatment group from each centre."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgment.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Patients and providers	Low risk	No blinding, but most outcomes were physiological and also used to validate self‐reports, and not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Assessors	Low risk	Insufficient information to know whether assessors were blinded. But most outcomes were physiological and also used to validate self‐reports, and not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	30% attrition at 6 months follow‐up. Balanced drop‐out and reasons for drop‐out stated. ITT completed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The published report included all expected outcomes based on the study hypotheses.
Other bias	High risk	23% of patients consulted some other professional for alcohol‐related problems during the treatment. Blood samples were drawn to check on self‐report. There were no differences between groups at baseline.