Supplementary Material 7. Quality Scores

Supplementary material 7. Quality scores

JADAD (Jadad et al., 1996)

1. Was the study described as randomized (including words such as randomly, random,

and randomization)? (0/1)

2. Was the method used to generate the sequence of randomization described and

appropriate (table of random numbers, computer-generated, etc.)? (0/1)

3. Was the study described as double blind? (0/1)

4. Was the double-blinding method described and appropriate (identical placebo, active

placebo, dummy, etc.)? (0/1)

5. Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? (0/1)

6. Deduct one point if the method used to generate the sequence of randomization was

described and was inappropriate (patients were allocated alternately or according to

date of birth, hospital number, etc.).(0/-1)

7. Deduct one point if the study was described as double blind but the double-blinding

method was inappropriate (e.g., comparison of tablet vs injection with no double

dummy). (0/-1)

Psychological Treatments for Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Meta- Analysis, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Gutermann, J., Schreiber, F., Matulis, S., Schwartzkopff, L., Deppe, J., Steil, R., Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, [email protected] GGK (Glombiewski et al., 2010)

1. Was the study controlled?

2. Was the study placebo controlled?

3. Was the study described as randomized?

4. Was the study adequately (unbiased) randomized?

5. Were relevant baseline characteristics described?

6. Were relevant baseline characteristics comparable between groups?

7. Were adequate inclusion and exclusion criteria described and justified?

8. Were dropout rates for each group described?

9. Were post-treatment dropout rates under 20%?

10. Was an ITT analysis performed (in the case of more than 10% dropouts)?

11. Was there a follow-up?

12. Was the length of follow-up at least 6 months (24 weeks)?

13. Was the loss to follow-up under 20%?

14. Was the intervention sufficiently described?

15. Was co-intervention avoided?

16. Was the intervention manualized/standardized?

17. Was the manual adherence supervised?

18. Was the outcome blindly assessed?

19. Were adequate primary and secondary outcome measures defined?

20. Were adequate statistics for main outcome measures reported?

Psychological Treatments for Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Meta- Analysis, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Gutermann, J., Schreiber, F., Matulis, S., Schwartzkopff, L., Deppe, J., Steil, R., Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, [email protected] Glombiewski, J. A., Sawyer, A. T., Gutermann, J., Koenig, K., Rief, W., & Hofmann, S. G.

(2010). Psychological treatments for fibromyalgia: A meta-analysis. Pain, 151(2),

280-295.

Jadad, A., Moore, R., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D., Gavaghan, D., et al. (1996).

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

Control Clin Trials, 17(1), 1-12.

Psychological Treatments for Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Meta- Analysis, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Gutermann, J., Schreiber, F., Matulis, S., Schwartzkopff, L., Deppe, J., Steil, R., Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, [email protected]