Comparison 5. Sensitivity analyses. S‐adenosyl methionine versus placebo as monotherapy.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Sensitivity analysis for imputation of continuous efficacy data (assumption: missing participants had same mean change as other participants). Efficacy. Change in mean scores from baseline to end of treatment on the depression rating scale (negative value = improvement)	2	142	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.53 [‐1.50, 0.45]
2 Sensitivity analysis for imputation of dichotomous data (assumption: 'best‐case' scenario). Efficacy. Response to treatment, defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in depression score from baseline to end of treatment	2	142	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.31 [0.84, 2.06]
3 Sensitivity analysis for the imputation of SD (using correlation coefficient of 0.4). Efficacy. Change in mean scores from baseline to end of treatment on depression rating scale (negative value = improvement)	2	142	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.55 [‐1.53, 0.42]
4 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high levels of missing data). Efficacy. Change in mean scores from baseline to end of treatment on depression rating scale (negative value = improvement)	1		Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
5 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high levels of missing data). Acceptability. Participants dropping out of treatment during study period for any reason	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
6 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high levels of missing data). Efficacy. Response to treatment, defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in depression score from baseline to end of treatment	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
7 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high levels of missing data). Acceptability. Participants dropping out for any reasons other than adverse effects	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected