Summary of findings 2. MBSR compared to inactive control for family carers of people with dementia.

MBSR (mindfulness‐based stress reduction) compared to inactive control for family carers of people with dementia
Patient or population: family carers of people with dementia Setting: community Intervention: MBSR Comparison: inactive control
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with inactive control	Risk with MBSR
Depressive symptoms assessed with: CESD Scale from 0 to 60 follow‐up: range 7 weeks to 8 weeks	The mean depressive symptoms was 14.2 score.	MD 1.97 score lower (6.89 lower to 2.95 higher)	‐	50 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW a b	Small effect size;c lower score represents lower depressive symptoms
Anxiety assessed with: STAI‐state anxiety Scale from 20 to 80 follow‐up: 8 weeks	The mean anxiety was 47.8 score.	MD 7.27 score lower (14.92 lower to 0.38 higher)	‐	33 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW a b	Moderate effect size;c lower score represents lower level of anxiety
Carer burden assessed with: RMBPC‐reaction Scale from 0 to 96 follow‐up: 7 weeks	The mean carer burden was 26.4 score.	MD 1.6 score lower (19.48 lower to 16.28 higher)	‐	17 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ VERY LOW b d	Small effect size;c lower score represents lower level of carer burden
Dropout rates follow‐up: 7 weeks	Study population		RR 2.00 (0.21 to 18.69)	20 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW b d	Important effect sizee
	100 per 1000	200 per 1000 (21 to 1000)
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CESD: Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RMBPC: Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist; RR: risk ratio; STAI: State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^aAs suggested by Ryan 2016a, we downgraded the quality of evidence by one level due to serious concern about imprecision.
 ^bWe downgraded the quality of evidence by one level due to serious concern about high risk of bias in blinding of participants and personnel.
 ^cTo assess the magnitude of effect for continuous outcomes, we used the criteria suggested by Cohen 1988: 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect.
 ^dAs suggested by Ryan 2016a, we downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels due to very serious concern about imprecision.
 ^eAs suggested by Ryan 2016b, we considered an RR < 0.75 or RR > 1.25 an important effect size for dichotomous outcomes.