<p>Supplementary material 7. Quality scores</p><p>JADAD (Jadad et al., 1996)</p><p>1. Was the study described as randomized (including words such as randomly, random, </p><p> and randomization)? (0/1)</p><p>2. Was the method used to generate the sequence of randomization described and </p><p> appropriate (table of random numbers, computer-generated, etc.)? (0/1)</p><p>3. Was the study described as double blind? (0/1)</p><p>4. Was the double-blinding method described and appropriate (identical placebo, active </p><p> placebo, dummy, etc.)? (0/1)</p><p>5. Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? (0/1)</p><p>6. Deduct one point if the method used to generate the sequence of randomization was </p><p> described and was inappropriate (patients were allocated alternately or according to </p><p> date of birth, hospital number, etc.).(0/-1)</p><p>7. Deduct one point if the study was described as double blind but the double-blinding </p><p> method was inappropriate (e.g., comparison of tablet vs injection with no double </p><p> dummy). (0/-1)</p><p>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)</p><p>1. Was the study controlled?</p><p>2. Was the study placebo controlled?</p><p>3. Was the study described as randomized?</p><p>4. Was the study adequately (unbiased) randomized?</p><p>5. Were relevant baseline characteristics described?</p><p>6. Were relevant baseline characteristics comparable between groups?</p><p>7. Were adequate inclusion and exclusion criteria described and justified?</p><p>8. Were dropout rates for each group described?</p><p>9. Were post-treatment dropout rates under 20%?</p><p>10. Was an ITT analysis performed (in the case of more than 10% dropouts)?</p><p>11. Was there a follow-up?</p><p>12. Was the length of follow-up at least 6 months (24 weeks)?</p><p>13. Was the loss to follow-up under 20%?</p><p>14. Was the intervention sufficiently described?</p><p>15. Was co-intervention avoided?</p><p>16. Was the intervention manualized/standardized?</p><p>17. Was the manual adherence supervised?</p><p>18. Was the outcome blindly assessed?</p><p>19. Were adequate primary and secondary outcome measures defined?</p><p>20. Were adequate statistics for main outcome measures reported?</p><p>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.</p><p>(2010). Psychological treatments for fibromyalgia: A meta-analysis. Pain, 151(2),</p><p>280-295.</p><p>Jadad, A., Moore, R., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D., Gavaghan, D., et al. (1996).</p><p>Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?</p><p>Control Clin Trials, 17(1), 1-12.</p><p>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]</p>