The sum of two numbers is 1000 if one of them is 424.38 then what is the other number

Neufeld 2008

Family/social domain scores

0.08

0.02

0.16

0.02

−0.09

81

0.005

Favours experimental group: CM + SM

Neufeld 2008

Employment domain scores

0.72

0.04

0.72

0.04

0.006

81

0.91

Favours neither group

Neufeld 2008

Alcohol domain scores

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.01

−0.02

81

0.17

Favours neither group

Neufeld 2008

Drug domain scores

0.16

0.01

0.19

0.01

−0.03

81

0.09

Favours neither group

CM: contingency management; df: degrees of freedom SE: standard error; SM: standard maintenance.

Priebe 2012

Adverse events: number of self‐harm days in past 2 months (averaged), at baseline

5

17.27

25.34

9

10.7

6.31

None reporteda

DBT range = 0.83 to 60.83; TAU range = 1.0 to 18.67

Priebe 2012

Adverse events: number of self‐harm days in past 2 months (averaged), at 2 months

5

3.6

6.95

9

12.22

19.58

None reporteda

DBT range = 0 to 16;

TAU range = 0 to 57

AsPD: antisocial personality disorder; DBT: Dialectical Behavior Therapy; n: numbers of participants; SD: standard deviation; TAU: treatment as usual.

Nathan 2019

Recidivism: total number of official criminal offences recorded in year 1 (higher = worse outcome)

16

4.13

5.78

19

5.21

3.28

None reported

Experimental group median = 2, range = 0 to 22; control group median = 4, range = 0 to 11

Nathan 2019

Recidivism: total number of official criminal offences recorded in year 2 (higher = worse outcome)

8

3.63

4.10

8

3.25

3.77

None reported

Experimental group median = 2, range = 0 to 11; control group median = 1.5, range = 0 to 9

Nathan 2019

Recidivism: total number of self‐report antisocial acts as reported by SRD in year 1 (higher = worse outcome)

16

9.69

19.34

19

7.37

5.17

None reported

Experimental group median = 4, range = 0 to 78; control group median = 7, range = 0 to 17

Nathan 2019

Recidivism: total number of self‐report antisocial acts as reported by SRD in year 2 (non‐cumulative) (higher = worse outcome)

8

8.75

14.05

9

7.33

9.51

None reported

Experimental group median = 2, range = 0 to 38 ; control group median = 4, range = 0 to 27

AsPD: antisocial personality disorder; PSRM: Psychosocial risk management 'resettle' programme n: numbers of participants; SD: standard deviation; SRD: Self‐Report Delinquency scale; TAU: treatment as usual.

A.

An enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas.

• Cognition (i.e. ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events).

• Affectivity (i.e. the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response).

• Interpersonal functioning.

• Impulse control.

B.

The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.

C.

The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D.

The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.

E.

The enduring pattern is not better explained as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder.

F.

The enduring pattern is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g. a drug of abuse, a medication) or a another medical condition (e.g. head trauma).

A.

A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following.

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

• Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honour financial obligations.

• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalising having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B.

The individual is at least 18 years.

C.

There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age of 15 years.

D.

The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterised by:

• callous unconcern for the feelings of others;

• gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;

• incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;

• very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;

• incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;

• marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalisations for the behaviour that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

There may also be persistent irritability as an associated feature. Conduct disorder during childhood and adolescents, though not invariably present, may further support the diagnosis.

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)

CBT‐based treatments place emphasis on encouraging the patient to challenge their core beliefs and thoughts in order to gain insight into how these influence their feelings and behaviour (Bateman 2004a; Henwood 2015).

Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT)

CAT utilises ideas from psychodynamic psychotherapy and cognitive therapy (Denman 2001). CAT encourages patients to identify and change learned attitudes and beliefs about themselves and how these impact on their patterns of relating to others.

Dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT)

DBT is a complex psychological intervention developed using some of the principles of CBT (Linehan 1993). DBT provides individuals with skills training in four modules (i.e. mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, interpersonal effectiveness).

Psychoanalytic therapy or

dynamic psychotherapy

The British Psychoanalytic Council defines psychoanalytic therapies as "a range of therapeutic treatments derived from psychoanalytic ideas and methods and a critical appreciation of the effect of childhood experiences on adult personality development" (British Psychoanalytical Council 2018; quote, p 2). (see also Piper 1993, Winston 1994, Bateman 2001 and Leichsenring 2003).

Mentalisation‐based therapy (MBT)

MBT has developed from attachment theory and aims to help patients identify and reflect on what they, and others are feeling and why, in order to better regulate their behaviour and emotions (Bateman 2004b).

Schema therapy (ST)

In ST, the therapist helps the patient identify long‐standing, self‐defeating patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving (‘schemas’) and develop healthier alternatives to replace them (Young 2003).

Nidotherapy

Nidotherapy is a formalised, planned method for achieving environmental change to minimise the effect of the participant’s difficulties upon themselves and others. Unlike most other therapies, it aims to fit the immediate environment to the patient, rather than change the patient to cope in the existing environment (Tyrer 2007). In order to achieve this, a detailed psychological formulation is developed for the individual participant (Tyrer 2005a).

Therapeutic community (TC) treatment

TC treatments involve participants engaging in group psychotherapy whilst being involved in a shared, therapeutic environment. This provides them with an opportunity to “explore intrapsychic and interpersonal problems and find more constructive ways of dealing with distress” (Campling 2001, quote, p 365). (see also Lees 1999).

Contingency management

Contingency management is based on the psychological principles of behaviour modification and aims to incentivise and reinforce changes in behaviour through the use of financial (or other rewards) that are of value to the patient. (Petry 2011).

Types of interventions

We will consider widening the range of interventions examined in future reviews to include concepts such as 'Motivation to Change'.

Measures of treatment effect

Continuous data

We will summarise change‐from‐baseline ('change score') data alongside endpoint data where these are available. Change‐from‐baseline data may be preferred to endpoint data if their distribution is less skewed, but both types may be included together in meta‐analysis when using the MD (Higgins 2011a, p 270). Where the data are insufficient for meta‐analysis, we will report the results of the trial investigators' own statistical analyses comparing treatment and control conditions, using change scores.

Unit of analysis issues

Cluster‐randomised trials

Where trials use clustered randomisation, study investigators may present their results after appropriately controlling for clustering effects (robust standard errors or hierarchical linear models). If, however, it is unclear whether a cluster‐randomised trial has used appropriate controls for clustering, we will contact the study investigators for further information. If appropriate controls were not used, we will request individual participant data and re‐analyse these using multilevel models that control for clustering. Following this, we will conduct a meta‐analysis of effect sizes and standard errors in RevMan 5 (Review Manager 2014), using the generic inverse method (Higgins 2011a). If appropriate controls were not used and individual participant data are not available, we will seek statistical guidance from the Cochrane Methods Group and external experts as to which method to apply to the published results in attempt to control for clustering. If there is insufficient information to control for clustering, we will enter the outcome data into RevMan5 (Review Manager 2014), using the individual as the unit of analysis, and then conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the potential biasing effects of inadequately controlled clustered trials (Donner 2001).

Dealing with missing data

The standard deviations of the outcome measures should be reported for each group in each trial. If these are not given, we will calculate these, where possible, from standard errors, confidence intervals, t‐values, F values or P values using the method described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, section 7.7.3.3 (Higgins 2011a). If these data are not available, we will impute standard deviations using relevant data (for example, standard deviations or correlation coefficients) from other, similar studies (Follman 1992), but only if, after seeking statistical advice, to do so is deemed practical and appropriate.

Assessment will be made of the extent to which the results of the review could be altered by the missing data by, for example, a sensitivity analysis based on consideration of 'best‐case' and 'worst‐case' scenarios (Gamble 2005). Here, the 'best‐case' scenario is where all participants with missing outcomes in the experimental condition had good outcomes, and all those with missing outcomes in the control condition had poor outcomes; the 'worst‐case' scenario is the converse (Higgins 2011a, section 16.2.2).

We will report data separately from studies where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow‐up. Where meta‐analysis is undertaken, we will assess the impact of including studies with attrition rates greater than 50% through a sensitivity analysis. If inclusion of data from this group results in a substantive change in the estimate of effect of the primary outcomes, we will not add the data from these studies to trials with less attrition and will present them separately.

Any imputation of data will be informed, where possible, by the reasons for attrition where these are available. We will interpret the results of any analysis based in part on imputed data with recognition that the effects of that imputation (and the assumptions on which it is based) can have considerable influence when samples are small.

Assessment of reporting biases

We will draw funnel plots (effect size versus standard error) to assess small study effects, when there are greater than 10 studies. Asymmetry of the plots may indicate publication bias, although they may also represent a true relationship between trial size and effect size. If such a relationship is identified, we will further examine the clinical diversity of the studies as a possible explanation (Egger 1997; Jakobsen 2014; Lieb 2016).

Data synthesis

For homogeneous interventions, we will group outcome measures by length of follow‐up, and use the weighted average of the results of all the available studies to provide an estimate of the effect of specific psychological interventions for people with antisocial personality disorder. We will use regression techniques to investigate the effects of differences in study characteristics on the estimate of the treatment effects. We will seek statistical advice before attempting meta‐regression. If meta‐regression is performed, it will be executed using a random‐effects model as per protocol.

Where studies provide both endpoint or change data, or both, for continuous outcomes, we will perform meta‐analysis that combines both data types using the methods described by Da Costa 2013.

We will consider pooling outcomes reported at different time points where this does not obscure the clinical significance of the outcome being assessed.

To address the issue of multiplicity, future reviews should consider the following:

• adjusting P values and CIs of outcomes using the method described by (Jakobsen 2014);

• adopting a hierarchy of outcome measures to select only one outcome per domain;

• using the approaches outlined in point 5 of Table 3.2.c in the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins 2019).

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We will undertake subgroup analysis to examine the effect on primary outcomes of:

• comorbid diagnosis (e.g. other personality disorder, substance misuse disorder);

• setting (inpatient, custodial, outpatient/community);

• whether intervention was group‐based or individual‐based;

• regression techniques will be used to investigate the effects of differences in study characteristics on the estimate of the treatment effects. We will seek statistical advice before attempting meta‐regression; if meta‐regression is performed, it will be executed using a random‐effects model.

Sensitivity analysis

We will undertake sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness of the overall findings in relation to certain study characteristics. A priori sensitivity analyses are planned for:

• concealment of allocation;

• blinding of outcome assessors;

• extent of dropouts;

• consideration of 'best‐case' and 'worst‐case' scenarios to assess the extent to which the results of the review could be altered by the missing data; and

• the impact of including studies with high attrition rates (25% to 50%).

• studies with data where at least 75% of participants have a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

Woody 1985

Supportive‐expressive psychotherapy + standard maintenance

Supportive‐expressive psychotherapy is an analytically‐oriented, focal psychotherapy. Standard maintenance is an individual counselling intervention focused on providing external services rather than dealing with intrapsychic processes, plus methadone maintenance.

McKay 2000

Individualised relapse prevention aftercare

Individualised relapse prevention is a manualised, modular intervention for substance users in the maintenance phase of recovery. Risky situations are identified and improved coping responses encouraged. Clients receive 1 individual relapse prevention session and 1 group session per week for up to 20 weeks.

Messina 2003

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) + standard maintenance

CBT is a structured intervention based on behavioural principles with positive verbal reinforcement of decreased or no use of illicit drugs, or for prosocial behaviour. Comprises 48 group sessions of 90 minutes (3 per week for 16 weeks) with typically 4 to 8 participants in each group. Participants continue on standard maintenance treatment (including methadone, mean = 72 mg/day).

Contingency management + standard maintenance

Contingency management + standard maintenance comprises a brief meeting (2 to 5 minutes) with a contingency management technician. Clean urine specimens are rewarded with vouchers of escalating value (to a maximum of USD 1277.50 if drug‐free for the 16 weeks of the trial) and with praise/encouragement. Positive samples result in the vouchers being withheld but the participant is not rebuked or punished. Participants continue on standard maintenance treatment (including methadone, mean = 62 mg/day).

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) + contingency management + standard maintenance

CBT + contingency management + standard maintenance is a structured intervention based on behavioural principles with positive verbal reinforcement of decreased or no use of illicit drugs, or for prosocial behaviour. Comprises 48 group sessions of 90 minutes (3 per week for 16 weeks) with typically 4 to 8 participants in each group. Participants continue on standard maintenance treatment (including methadone, mean = 68 mg/day) and meet with a contingency management technician (2 to 5 minutes). Clean urine specimens are rewarded with vouchers of escalating value (to a maximum of USD 1277.50 if drug‐free for the 16 weeks of the trial) and with praise or encouragement. Positive samples result in the vouchers being withheld but the participant is not rebuked or punished.

Tyrer 2004

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) + treatment as usual

Manual‐assisted CBT (MACT) is a treatment for self‐harming behaviour where participants are provided with a booklet based on CBT principles plus an offer of 5 plus 2 booster sessions of CBT in the first 3 months.

Ball 2005

Dual‐focus schema therapy

Dual focus schema therapy is a 24‐week, manual‐guided individual therapy that integrates symptom‐focused relapse prevention coping skills techniques with schema‐focused techniques for early maladaptive schemas and coping styles.

Neufeld 2008

Contingency management + standard maintenance

Contingency‐based behavioural programme is a highly structured contingency‐based, adaptive treatment protocol comprising counselling sessions and behavioural interventions. Drug abstinence and counselling attendance are rewarded by greater control over methadone management with negative reinforcers being a reduction in methadone dosage and control of the dosage. Standard maintenance comprises standard methadone substitution treatment with 2 individual counselling sessions per week with bi‐weekly reviews; negative drug screens are rewarded with methadone take‐home doses.

Havens 2007

Strengths‐based case management

Strengths‐based case management of 5 to 24 minutes duration; includes engagement, strengths assessment, personal case planning, and resource acquisition. Services provided by case managers include advice on referrals to health and social services, and on transportation and employment.

Huband 2007

Social problem‐solving therapy with psychoeducation

A brief, individual psychoeducation programme followed by 16 weekly, group‐based problem‐solving sessions (lasting approximately 2 hours) based on the 'Stop and Think!' method. Groups start with no more than 8 participants in each and are single gender.

Marlowe 2007

Optimal judicial supervision

Optimal (‘matched’) schedule of court hearings in which frequency of court attendance is matched with risk, so that high‐risk offenders (those with antisocial personality disorder and a history of drug treatment) attend with greater frequency. Group sessions are psychoeducational and cover a range of topics including relapse prevention strategies.

Woodall 2007

'Driving whilst intoxicated program' + incarceration

The ‘Driving whilst intoxicated program' is nonconfrontational and utilises a psychoeducational approach on the harmful effects of alcohol, stress management, and a work‐release programme for those in employment. It also incorporates culturally appropriate elements (71% of participants were native American). The programme was delivered whilst participants were subject to 28 days incarceration.

Davidson 2009

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) + treatment as usual

CBT involves a cognitive formulation of the individual’s problems (to promote engagement) and therapy focusing on beliefs about self and others that impair social functioning. Individuals were offered 15 or 30 sessions of CBT (to determine the optimal ‘dose’) and therapist adherence/competence was assessed for a random selection (30%) of sessions by audio recording and found to be “within the 'competent range'” (quote, p 517)

Bernstein 2012

Schema therapy (ST)

ST is an integrative therapy for personality disorders combining cognitive, behavioural, psychodynamic object relations, and humanistic/experiential approaches; individual therapy delivered twice a week according to adapted procedures for forensic patients set out in a practitioner’s guide; treatment lasts from 2 to 3 years, with frequency reduced to 1 session per week in the third year of treatment.

Feigenbaum 2012

Dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT)

DBT pretreatment phase of 3‐6 weeks of goal‐setting and commitment‐building followed by offer of 1 year DBT treatment contract; DBT treatment consists of 1 hour of individual therapy and 2.5 hours of group skills training per week plus out‐of‐hours telephone consultation, as required.

Priebe 2012

Dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT)

12 months of DBT delivered according to Linehan’s treatment and skills training manuals (Linehan 1993); 1 × 1‐hour individual therapy session per week; 1 × 2‐hour skills training group per week; out‐of‐hours skills coaching by telephone, as required.

Asmand 2015)

Dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT)

DBT condition and mode of delivery was very poorly described by the study authors; possibly delivered through 16 × 1‐hour sessions.

Rational emotional behaviour Therapy (REBT)

REBT, based on cognitive behaviour therapy principles, was very poorly described by the study authors; possibly delivered through 16 × 1‐hour sessions.

McMurran 2016

Psychoeducation with problem‐solving (PEPS) + treatment as usual

PEPS therapy is a cognitive–behavioural intervention that integrates individual and group therapies with optional individual support sessions; up to four individual psychoeducation sessions; 12 × 2‐hour group sessions of problem‐solving therapy; individual support sessions offered every 2 weeks through the 12‐week problem‐solving group (optional). Patients also received treatment as usual.

Tarrier 2010

Schema modal therapy (SMT) + treatment as usual

SMT followed Young’s SMT protocol (Young 2003); 1 60‐minute individual session each week for a minimum of 18 months. Participants also received treatment as usual.

Thylstrup 2015

Impulsive lifestyle counselling (ILC) + treatment as usual

ILC is a manualised, psychoeducational intervention; 6 sessions cover specific topics and include mandatory questions, printed handouts and worksheets for the patient.

Nathan 2019

Psychosocial risk management (PSRM)

'Resettle' PSRM is a non‐manualised, integrative sociotherapy underpinned by case formulation, risk management, probation supervision and intervention planning. The programme consists of 3 levels: 1) therapeutic milieu generated by appropriate and prosocial relationships; 2) group work to enhance participants' capacity for self‐reflection and understanding of others; and 3) individual psychosocial interventions focused on risk management, well‐being and social integration. PSRM treatment consists of a 6‐month preparatory phase (before individual is released from prison), followed by community‐based treatment (time frame = 1‐2 years).

Woody 1985

SM: an individual counselling intervention focused on providing external services rather than dealing with intrapsychic processes, plus methadone maintenance

McKay 2000

TAU: standard continuing care comprising 2 group therapy sessions per week where the orientation was a mix of addictions counselling and 12‐step recovery practices

Messina 2003

SM: methadone maintenance; treatment, with daily clinic visits for methadone, twice‐monthly counselling sessions, plus medical care and case management visits, as required

Tyrer 2004

TAU: participants were seen by another designated therapist and offered the standard treatment in the area concerned or the continuation of current therapy.

Ball 2005

TAU: standard group substance abuse counselling as normally provided at the drop‐in centre where clients are typically offered a total of 3 opportunities per week to attend group psychoeducation and counselling sessions

Havens 2007

Passive referral: strengths‐based case management (SBCM) of 0 to 4 minutes duration

Huband 2007

TAU: placed on waiting list for active intervention

Marlowe 2007

Standard (‘unmatched’) schedule court hearings requiring attendance every 4 to 6 weeks

Neufeld 2008

SM: standard methadone substitution treatment and participants attended 2 individual counselling sessions per week

Woodall 2007

Incarceration

Davidson 2009

TAU: “all participants received whatever treatment they would have received had the trial not taken place” (quote; p 570, column 2)

Tarrier 2010

TAU: “Group‐based enhanced thinking skills and sex offender treatment were the most frequently provided therapies recorded on the TAU logs." (quote; p 14); other noted TAU therapies included: social therapy and resettlement work; review of clinical or psychology reports; discussion of therapy; neurorehabilitation; review of previous assessments; end of therapy meeting support work; and "talking sessions” (quote; p 14)

Bernstein 2012

TAU: standard treatment that patients receive at each clinic usually another (non‐ST) form of individual psychotherapy such as cognitive‐behaviour therapy, psychodynamic therapy, or client‐centred therapy

Feigenbaum 2012

TAU: range of individualised service provision, including outpatient psychiatric review, case management, psychoanalytic psychotherapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, supportive structured counselling, inpatient admission, drug and alcohol treatment and crisis management

Priebe 2012

TAU: participants allocated to the TAU condition were referred back to the referrer and encouraged to engage in any kind of treatment other than DBT; "this may have included treatment from psychotherapists, psychiatrists, community mental health teams, counsellors, general practitioners or user‐run support groups, all of which were offered free of charge under the NHS." (quote; p 358)

Asmand 2015

TAU: unclear but TAU control group may have received individual work, but no details were provided

Thylstrup 2015

TAU: access to opioid substitution treatment (if required); psychosocial support such as casework, counselling, or referral to residential rehabilitation; referral to 'off‐site' psychiatrist for treatment of other psychiatric conditions

McMurran 2016

TAU: provided by participants’ usual‐care teams; TAU includes assessment, care planning, risk assessment and psychological interventions; participants excluded at baseline if accessing/likely to access psychological treatment programme specifically designed for personality disorder.

Nathan 2019

TAU: standard probation supervision following release from prison; TAU comprises regular meetings (weekly initially) with the offender manager and engagement with other services where specified in the licence conditions.

Davidson 2009

AUDIT scores (high = poor); at 12 months

8.2 (6.8), [25]

5.9 (7.6), [19]

4.1 (0.5 to 7.7), P = 0.03

11.1 (5.9), [27]

11.0 (9.4), [20]

0.3 (−3.1 to 3.7), P = 0.85

4.1 (−0.6 to 8.9), P = 0.08

Favours neither group

LOCF analysisa

Davidson 2009

AUDIT total units scores (high = poor); at 12 months

8.4 (9.1), [24]

7.9 (10.0), [18]

2.7 (−2.8 to 8.2), P = 0.31

15.7 (12.4), [26]

10.7 (14.7), [20]

5.5 (−1.7 to 12.8), P = 0.12

0.6 (−7.6 to 8.8), P = 0.88

Favours neither group

LOCF analysisa

AUDIT: Alcohol Use Identification Test;CBT: cognitive behavioural therapy; CI: confidence interval; LOCF: last‐observation‐carried‐forward; n: number of participants;SD: standard deviation; TAU: treatment as usual.

Davidson 2009

Total cost of health, social work and criminal justice services received; over 12 months

GBP 38,004

GBP 31,097

No statistic available

Davidson 2009

Average cost per participant for NHS services alone; over 12 months

GBP 1295

GBP 1133

No statistic available

CBT: cognitive behavioural therapy; GBP: British pound sterling; n: number of participants; TAU: treatment as usual.

Davidson 2009

BCSS self‐as‐positive belief scores; at 12 months

8.6 (5.7), [25]

8.8 (6.3), [19]

0.2 (−1.9 to 2.4), P = 0.84

7.8 (6.1) [27]

7.2 (6.8), [20]

−0.1 (−3.0 to 2.7), P = 0.92

−0.2 (−3.6 to 3.1), P = 0.89

Favours neither group

LOCF analysisa

Davidson 2009

BCSS self‐as‐negative belief scores; at 12 months

8.6 (5.5), [25]

7.7 (6.7), [19]

2.2 (−0.4 to 4.8), P = 0.09

10.1 (6.6) [27]

8.6 (6.1), [20]

0.5 (−2.1 to 3.1), P = 0.68

−0.8 (−4.3 to 2.7), P = 0.64

Favours neither group

LOCF analysisa

Davidson 2009

BCSS others‐as‐positive belief scores; at 12 months

9.3 (6.1), [25]

9.6 (6.4), [19]

−0.4 (−3.0 to 2.2), P = 0.74

6.6 (4.4) [27]

5.6 (4.4), [20]

1.2 (−1.0 to 3.4), P = 0.28

−2.6 (−5.8 to 0.5), P = 0.10

Favours neither group

LOCF analysisa

Davidson 2009

BCSS others‐as‐negative belief scores; at 12 months

12.9 (7.4), [25]

11.9 (8.2), [19]

0.2 (−1.7 to 2.1), P = 0.82

11.8 (7.1) [27]

9.1 (5.3), [20]

2.4 (−0.7 to 5.6), P = 0.12

−2.4 (−5.8 to 0.9), P = 0.15

Favours neither group

LOCF analysisa

BCSS: Brief Core Schema Scales; CBT: cognitive behavioural therapy; CI: confidence interval; LOCF: last‐observation‐carried‐forward; n: number of participants; SD: standard deviation; TAU: treatment as usual.

Thylstrup 2015

Aggression: change in BPAQ‐SF from baseline to 3 months

0.34

70

0.50

61

None reported

‐

Thylstrup 2015

Aggression: change in BPAQ‐SF from baseline to 9 months

0.72

63

0.76

55

None reported

‐

Thylstrup 2015

Aggression: change in SRASBM from baseline to 3 months

0.47

70

0.57

61

None reported

‐

Thylstrup 2015

Aggression: change in SRASBM from baseline to months

0.75

63

0.31

55

None reported

‐

BPAQ‐SF: Buss‐Perry Aggression Questionnaire ‐ Short Form; ILC: impulsive lifestyle counselling; n: number of participants; SMD: standardised mean difference; SRASBM: Self‐Report of Aggression and Social Behavior Measure; TAU: treatment as usual.

Thylstrup 2015

Aggression: Self‐Report of Aggression and Social Behavior Measure (SRASBM) at 3 months

70

0.64

0.49

61

0.64

0.46

Regression coefficienta = 0.083 (95% CI −0.092 to 0.260), P > 0.05

Favours neither group

Thylstrup 2015

Aggression: Self‐Report of Aggression and Social Behavior Measure (SRASBM) at 9 months

63

0.47

0.39

55

0.61

0.52

Regression coefficientb = 0.026 (95% CI −0.158 to 0.210), P > 0.05

Favours neither group

Thylstrup 2015

Substance misuse: Addiction Severity Index (ASI), drug composite score at 3 months

70

0.17

0.12

61

0.21

0.12

Regression coefficientc = −0.052 (95% CI −0.096 to −0.009), P = 0.018.

Favours experimental group: ILC + TAU

Thylstrup 2015

Substance misuse: Addiction Severity Index (ASI), drug composite score at 9 months

63

0.15

0.12

55

0.16

0.13

Regression coefficientd = −0.0040 (95% CI −0.049 to 0.042), P > 0.05

Favours neither group

Thylstrup 2015

Substance misuse: Addiction Severity Index (ASI), alcohol composite score at 3 months

72

0.12

0.22

61

0.12

0.22

Regression coefficiente = 0.008 (95% CI −0.061 to 0.077), P > 0.05

Favours neither group

Thylstrup 2015

Substance misuse: Addiction Severity Index (ASI), alcohol composite score at 9 months

63

0.12

0.21

55

0.1

0.18

Regression coefficientf = 0.049 (95% CI −0.023 to 0.121), P > 0.05

Favours neither group

Thylstrup 2015

Substance misuse: Days abstinent (in previous 30 days) at 3 months

72

13.2

12.7

61

10.8

11.2

Regression coefficientg = 4.319 (95% CI 0.183 to 8.456), P < 0.05

Favours experimental group: ILC + TAU

Thylstrup 2015

Substance misuse: Days abstinent (in previous 30 days) at 9 months

63

15.3

13.3

55

13.7

12.7

Regression coefficienth = 3.584 (95% CI −0.751 to 7.919), P > 0.05

Favours neither group

ASI: Addiction Severity Index; CI: confidence interval; ILC: impulsive lifestyle counselling; n: number of participants; SD: standard deviation; SRASBM: Self‐Report of Aggression and Social Behaviour Measure; TAU: treatment as usual.

Messina 2003

Number cocaine‐negative specimens; by 16 weeksa

15

39.4

11.4

12

9.3

11.3

P < 0.05 (Two‐way ANOVA; Tukey‐Kramer post hoc test; no further details)

Favours experimental group: CM + SM

ANOVA: analysis of variance; CM: contingency management; n: participant numbers reported as randomised to each condition; SD: standard deviation; SM: standard maintenance.

Neufeld 2008

Percentage opioid‐negative specimens; at 6 months

80.5%

73.7%

OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.42, P = 0.393)

Favours neither group

Neufeld 2008

Percentage cocaine‐negative specimens; at 6 months

77.3%

66.7%

OR 1.59 (95% CI 0.86 to 2.96, P = 0.139)

Favours neither group

Neufeld 2008

Percentage sedative‐negative specimens; at 6 months

96.2%

90.8%

OR 1.82 (95% CI 0.715 to 4.42, P = 0.184)

Favours neither group

Neufeld 2008

Percentage (any) drug‐negative specimens; at 6 months

68.7%

54.2%

OR 1.70 (95% CI 0.94 to 3.07, P = 0.081)

Favours neither group

CI: confidence interval;CM: contingency management; OR: odds ratio; SM: standard maintenance.

Neufeld 2008

Number of counselling sessions attended in proportion to total number of sessions offered by 6 months

83.2%a (1285/1545)

53.4%a (897/1679)

OR 4.00, 95% CI  2.39 to 6.70, P < 0.0001; statistics provided by trial investigators

Favours experimental group: CM + SM

CI: confidence intervals; CM: contingency management; OR: odds ratio; SM: standard maintenance.

Woodall 2007

Days driving after drinking in past 30 days; self‐reported; at 6 months

30

0.83

3.70

13

0.69

2.50

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

Woodall 2007

Days driving after drinking in past 30 days; self‐reported; at 12 months

30

0.63

1.69

13

0.46

0.88

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

Woodall 2007

Days driving after drinking in past 30 days; self‐reported; at 24 months

30

0.67

1.75

13

0.38

0.38

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

Woodall 2007

Days driving after drinking in past 30 days; self‐reported; mean improvement over baseline; at 24 months

30

4.26

6.32

13

3.03

4.08

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

ANOVA: analysis of variance; AsPD: antisocial personality disorder; DWI: 'Driving whilst intoxicated program'; n: numbers of participants; SD: standard deviation.

Woodall 2007

Days driving after 5 or more drinks in past 30 days; self‐reported; at 6 months

30

0.87

3.73

13

0.08

0.28

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

Woodall 2007

Days driving after 5 or more drinks in past 30 days; self‐reported; at 12 months

30

0.57

1.63

13

0.38

0.77

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

Woodall 2007

Days driving after 5 or more drinks in past 30 days; self‐reported; at 24 months

30

0.50

1.25

13

0.31

0.63

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

Woodall 2007

Days driving after 5 or more drinks in past 30 days; self‐reported; mean improvement over baseline; at 24 months

30

3.02

4.93

13

2.28

4.22

None provided

Favours neither group

Completer analysisa

ANOVA: analysis of variance; AsPD: antisocial personality disorder; DWI: 'Driving whilst intoxicated program';n: numbers of participants; SD: standard deviation.

Bernstein 2012

Social functioning: mean number of days to supervised leave

16

424.38

309.65

14

564.91

317.55

Study author‐reported t‐test (df = 22), 1.07, P > 0.05

Favours neither group

df: degrees of freedom; n: numbers of participants; SD: standard deviation; ST: Schema Therapy; TAU: treatment as usual.

Messina 2003

Number cocaine‐negative specimens; by 16 weeksa

14

24.8

15.6

12

9.3

11.3

P < 0.05 (Two‐way ANOVA; Tukey‐Kramer post‐hoc test)

Favours experimental group: CBT + SM

ANOVA: analysis of variance; CBT: cognitive behavioural therapy; n: numbers reported as randomised to each condition; SD: standard deviation; SM: standard maintenance.

Messina 2003

Number cocaine‐negative specimens; by 16 weeksa

7

37.7

13.3

12

9.3

11.3

P < 0.05 (Two‐way ANOVA; Tukey‐Kramer post‐hoc test)

Favours experimental group: CM + CBT + SM

ANOVA: analysis of variance; CBT: cognitive behavioural therapy; CM: contingency management; n: numbers reported as randomised to each condition; SD: standard deviation; SM: standard maintenance.