Skip to main content
. 2011 May 11;2011(5):CD008063. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008063.pub2

Sellman 2001.

Methods RCT.
Participants 125 patients from New Zealand with mild to moderate alcohol dependence.
Interventions 1. MET (n= 42)
2. non‐directive reflective listening (n= 40)
3. no further counselling (n= 40).
Outcomes Physiological primary: None.
Non‐physiological primary: Broke abstinence, exceeded national guidelines at least once, exceeded national guidelines six or more times, drank 10+ standard drinks at least once, drank 10+ standard drink six or more times.
Secondary: None.
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk "...randomly constructed list of therapies."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "An administrative person who was independent of the assessment and treatment of the study was contacted regarding the therapy to be undertaken."
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 Low risk "A senior research assistant, who was blind to the treatment received, successfully completed follow‐up."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 1% attrition at 6 months follow‐up. Attrition was balanced across conditions, but no reasons were reported. It is unclear whether ITT was performed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk The published report included all expected outcomes based on the study hypotheses.
Other bias Low risk Collateral to check on self‐report. There were differences between groups at baseline for GAS score. No additional sources of bias appear to be present.