Comparison 3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 2: CBT+ STANDARD CARE versus STANDARD CARE ALONE (LESS‐WELL DEFINED CBT).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ medium term	5		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
1.1 With less‐well defined CBT	5	667	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.52 [0.38, 0.71]
1.2 Without less‐well defined CBT	2	458	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.41, 0.84]
2 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ long term	13		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
2.1 With less‐well defined CBT	13	1538	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.74, 0.99]
2.2 Without less‐well defined CBT	8	957	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.76, 1.06]
3 Global state: 2. Clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ long term	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
3.1 With less‐well defined CBT	2	82	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.57 [0.39, 0.84]
3.2 Without less‐well defined CBT	1	32	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.5 [0.25, 1.00]
4 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ long term	5		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
4.1 With less‐well defined CBT	5	501	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.65, 1.02]
4.2 Without less‐well defined CBT	2	125	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.50, 1.33]