Berti Ceroni 2002.

Methods	Cluster‐randomised controlled trial of consultation liaison compared to standard care
Participants	Consumers (n = 92): People attending primary care practices diagnosed by Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) for DSM‐IV major depression, minor depression (at least three major depression symptoms including anhedonia or depressed mood) or subsyndromal depression (at least two symptoms excluding anhedonia and depressed mood). Their mean age was 44.6 years, 80% were female (n = 64). Major depression 15, minor 38 and subsyndromal 27 Excluded: Older than 65 years, life‐threatening illness, psychotic disorders, cognitive impairment or ongoing treatment with a mental health specialist. Primary care providers (n = 30): GPs with an established practice of at least ten years. Mental health specialists (n = 2): one psychiatrist from a local community mental health service and one experienced in primary care psychiatry. Setting: general health care settings in rural and urban areas, Bologna, Italy.
Interventions	1. Consultation Liaison (n = 44). Mental health specialist/consumer: interaction not reported. Mental health specialist/primary care provider: primary care providers and two psychiatrists met in 12 biweekly groups of two hours where diagnoses and planning for therapies were discussed. Each consumer was discussed at least three times. Primary care provider/consumer: interaction not reported. 2. Standard care (n = 36). Treatment as usual although the primary care provider received feedback on diagnosis.
Outcomes	1. Consumer Improvement: remission of diagnosis (CIDI) at 12 months. Symptoms: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form ‐ 36 at 12 months. General Health: General Health Questionnaire (GHQ‐12) at 3 and 12 months. 2. Provider Treatment: received any treatment over 12 months. Prescribing: received pharmacotherapy over 12 months.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Primary care providers were block randomised but how this was done was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Primary care providers would have been aware which groups they were in so this may have affected treatment patterns. It is not clear whether consumers would have been aware if they were in the active group.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Data was only reported for those available at 12 months follow‐up, loss to follow‐up 13%.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	None of the consumer outcomes were reported by group.
Other bias	Unclear risk	There were more consumers with severe depression in the standard care group (9 vs 6) at baseline. Cluster randomisation does not seem to have been accounted for in the analysis.