Methodology checklist - intervention studies
Study reference There was adequate concealment of allocation Participants receiving care were kept 'blind' to treatment allocation Care providers were kept 'blind' to treatment allocation Outcome assessors were kept 'blind' to participants’ exposure to the intervention Use of unvalidated or intermediate Selective outcome reporting on basis of the results Loss to follow-up/incomplete outcome data described and acceptable Analysis by intention to treat Other limitations Comments
Goldstein, 2010 yes no no no no no yes yes yes

- no control group with no treatment

- SMC condition did not control for therapist contact, which was greater in the CBT group

- whether patients were receiving CBT could not be concealed from neuopsychiatrists providing SMC

- small sample size (n=66)

- potential selection bias to chronic, more difficult-to-treat patients

- longer follow-up would provide better comparison

LaFrance, 2010 yes yes yes yes no no yes yes yes

- pilot was not powered for establishing treatment efficacy

Lafrance, 2014 yes no no yes no no yes yes yes

The study was not powered to detect between-group differences, but was designed for within-group analyses

Study was not powered to analyse between-group differences