James 1988.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group Allocation concealment: not specified Randomisation method: not specified
Participants	Baseline characteristics MT + SC Gender male: not specified Age: not specified Sample size: not specified SC Gender male: not specified Age: not specified Sample size: not specified Overall Gender male: 10 (50%) Age: 15 years 9 months Sample size: 20 Inclusion criteria: primary diagnosis of substance abuse or substance dependency (APA 1980); adolescents currently admitted to inpatient unit for treatment of chemical dependency Exclusion criteria: not specified Pretreatment: no significant differences between groups in chronological age, male:female ratio, level of education and length of hospitalisation. No significant differences between groups on pretest scores of local of control
Interventions	Intervention characteristics MT + SC Description: MT discussion group consisting of listening to a recorded song, analysing the lyrics and processing the themes. Led by a board‐certified music therapist and assisted by a certified occupational therapy assistant. A list of questions following principles of Values Clarification served to structure discussions. Session length: 1 hour Frequency: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday of the same week Duration of treatment: 1 week SC Description: alternate activities consisting of occupational therapy craft groups Session length: 1 hour Frequency: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday of the same week Duration of treatment: 1 week
Outcomes	Retention in treatment Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Direction: higher is better Data value: endpoint Notes: retention in treatment calculated as the % of participants remaining at the conclusion of the treatment. Not used:  Locus of control (External Internal Locus of Control)
Identification	Sponsorship source: – Country: USA Setting: inpatient chemical dependency unit in a free‐standing facility Comments: – Author's name: Mark R James Institution: Elizabeth General Medical Center Declarations of interest: no conflicts of interest reported.
Notes	Email (7 July 2017) from author confirmed report included 2 studies James 1988a and James 1988b. Only James 1988a met eligibility criteria.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information about the sequence generation to permit judgement.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information to permit judgement.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Judgement comment: no missing outcome data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: no selective outcome reporting.
Blinding of participants and providers (performance bias) (subjective outcomes)	Low risk	Judgement comment: not possible to blind participants and providers to MT intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) (subjective outcomes)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: not possible to blind outcome assessor for self‐report outcomes, though measurement not likely to be influenced differentially between groups.