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. |