Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 22;2021(4):CD013495. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013495.pub2

2. Other reported outcomes (with non‐prioritised outcome measures), not included in meta‐analysis.

Outcome Study ID Intervention Number intervention Control group Number control Study authors' conclusions about differences between groups
Comparison 1: abrupt discontinuation vs continuation of long‐term antidepressants
3. Withdrawal symptoms            
Adjusted mean DESS total score over first 2 weeks of the
discontinuation period Khan 2014 5.3 (SE 0.52) 146 4.1 (SE 0.72) 36 no conclusions made by study authors
             
5. Depressive symptoms            
BDI, mean change Peterson 2010 ‐0.47 (SD 0.48) 16 1.5 ( SD 1.33) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
BDI, mean change Peterson 2010 2.38 (SD 4.64) 11 0.43 (SD 0.82) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
MADRS, mean change Kornstein 2006 ‐0.3 (SD 3) 65 0.1 (SD 5.8) 73 study authors reported no differences between groups
SQ Depression, mean change Peterson 2010 0.56 (SD 0.28) 16 0.15 (SD 0.08) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
SQ Depression, mean change Peterson 2010; 2.67 (SD 1.32) 11 0.14 (SD 0.1) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
6. Anxiety symptoms            
PDSS, mean change Rapaport 2001 2.27 (SD 4.44) 89 1.51 (SD 4.3) 92 study authors reported no differences between groups
Frequency of full panic attacks, mean change Rapaport 2001 1.14 (SD 5.59) 89 0.75 (SD 3.59) 92 study authors reported no differences between groups
10. Global severity of illness            
CGI‐I, mean change Kornstein 2006 ‐0.1 (SD 0.3) 65 0 (SD 0.6) 73 study authors reported no differences between groups
CGI‐I, mean change Peterson 2010 0.32 (SD 0.29) 16 0.18 (SD 0.27) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
CGI‐I, mean change Peterson 2010; 0.33 (SD 0.22) 11 0.35 (SD 0.15) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
Endpoint CGI‐I rating Rapaport 2001 0.9 (SD 1.41) 89 0.34 (SD 1.03) 92 study authors reported a modest statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Patient Global Impression, mean change Peterson 2010 0.33 (SD 0.12) 16 0.08 (SD 0.31) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
CGI‐I, mean change Peterson 2010 0.33 (SD 0.22) 11 0.29 (SD 0.26) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
11. Other reported outcomes            
Symptom Questionnaire Somatic Subscale, mean change Peterson 2010 ‐0.01 (SD 0.32) 16 0.28 (SD 0.54) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
Symptom Questionnaire Somatic Subscale, mean change Peterson 2010 1.19 (SD 1.01) 11 0.61 (SD 0.45) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
SQ Hostility, mean change Peterson 2010 0.51 (SD 0.77) 16 0.77 (SD 0.62) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
SQ Hostility, mean change Peterson 2010 1.69 (SD 1.18) 11 0.34 (SD 0.59) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
Beck Hopelessness Scale, mean change Peterson 2010 ‐0.83 (SD 1.06) 16 ‐0.17 (SD 0.23) 14 study authors reported no differences between groups
Beck Hopelessness Scale, mean change Peterson 2010 1.07 (SD 1.02) 11 0.48 (SD 0.20) 11 study authors reported no differences between groups
Cognitive function assessed by Mini‐Mental State Examination, mean endpoint score Streim 2012 24.9 (SD 4) 13 23.1 (SD 4.4) 23 no conclusions made by study authors
Comparison 2: discontinuation by tapering vs continuation of long‐term antidepressants
3. Withdrawal symptoms            
Adjusted mean DESS total score for first 2 weeks of the
discontinuation period Khan 2014 4.8 (SE 0.54) 139 4.1 (SE 0.72) 36 no conclusions made by study authors
             
             
5. Depressive symptoms            
BDI, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 13.9 (SD 10.7) 84 9 (SD 9.9) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
MADRS, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 15 (SD 12.5) 84 7.9 (SD 9.6) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
MADRS, mean endpoint score Cook 1986 12.8 (SD 10.1) 9 4.8 (SD 4.5) 6 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Cornell Dysthymic Rating Scale, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 25.6 (SD 18.4) 84 14.3 (SD 14.9) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Carroll Depression Scale, mean endpoint score Cook 1986 17.6 (SD 10.6) 9 10.7 (SD 7.2) 6 study authors reported no differences between groups
IDS‐SR, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 18.7 (SE 1.7) 40 11.9 (SE 1.7) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
IDS‐SR, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 18.6 (SE 1.2) 129 15.5 (SE 1.2) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
HAM‐D subscale score, depressed mood item 1 score, mean endpoint score Montgomery 2004 1.5 (SE 0.11) 107 0.9 (SE 0.11) 108 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
HAM‐D subscale score, depressed mood item 1 score, mean change Perahia 2009 0.67 (SE 0.1) 142 0.27 (SE 0.09) 145 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
HAM‐D subscale score, core factor, mean change Perahia 2009 1.74 (SE 0.24) 142 0.75 (SE 0.22) 145 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
HAM‐D subscale score, Maier, mean change Perahia 2009 2.25 (SE 0.31) 142 0.91 (SE 0.29) 145 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
HAM‐D subscale score, retardation, mean change Perahia 2009 1.49 (SE 0.22) 142 0.59 (SE 0.20) 145 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
HAM‐D subscale score, sleep, mean change Perahia 2009 0.71 (SE 0.13) 142 0.13 (SE 0.12) 145 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
             
MADRS, mean endpoint score Montgomery 2004 15.1 (SE 1.14) 107 9.5 (SE 1.01) 106 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
             
6. Anxiety symptoms            
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), anxiety factor, mean endpoint score Rickels 2010 9.29 (SE 0.44) 54 7.43 (SE 0.38) 82 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), anxiety factor, mean endpoint score Rickels 2010 8.42 (SE 1.05) 34 5.8 (SE 1.28) 25 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
IDS‐SR, anxiety/arousal, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 6.9 (SE 0.6) 40 4.1 (SE 0.6) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
IDS‐SR, anxiety/arousal, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 6.2 (SE 0.5) 129 5.3 (SE 0.5) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
8. Quality of life            
GHQ, adjusted endpoint score Rickels 2010 28.17 (SD 8.41) 54 23.73 (6.26) 82 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
LES‐S, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 55.2 (SE 3.4) 40 66.1 (SE 2.9) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Q‐LES‐Q, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 66.9 (SE 2.2) 40 74.7 (SE 2.1) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
SF‐36, role functioning, physical mean endpoint score Keller 2007 65.8 (SE 5.2) 40 74.2 (SE 4.9) 43 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, bodily pain, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 71.2 (SE 3.4) 40 77.4 (SE 3.2) 43 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, general health, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 65.9 (SE 2.5) 40 73.0 (SE 2.3) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
SF‐36, vitality, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 47.3 (SE 3.3) 40 57.9 (SE 3.1) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
SF‐36, physical component summary, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 51.9 (SE 1.1) 40 51.8 (SE 1.1) 43 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, mental component summary, mean endpoint score Keller 2007 39.2 (SE 1.9) 40 47.6 (SE 1.8) 43 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
LES‐S, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 58.1 (SE 2.2) 129 62.9 (SE 2.1) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
Q‐LES‐Q, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 67.3 (SE 1.3) 129 72.3 (SE 1.3) 129 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
SF‐36, role functioning, physical mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 69.0 (SE 3.8) 129 76.2 (SE 3.8) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, bodily pain, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 74.6 (SE 2.2) 129 75.1 (SE 2.1) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, general health, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 71.0 (SE 1.6) 129 72.7 (SE 1.5) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, vitality, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 48.4 (SE 2.2) 129 51.3 (SE 2.1) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, physical component summary, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 53.3 (SE 0.8) 129 52.6 (SE 0.8) 129 study authors reported no differences between groups
SF‐36, mental component summary, mean endpoint score Kocsis 2007 40.5 (SE 1.3) 129 44.5 (SE 1.3) 129 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception of quality of life, 3 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 3.4 (SD 0.9) 93 3.6 (SD 0.8) 86 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception of quality of life, 15 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 3.6 (SD 0.8) 83 3.7 (SD 0.9) 68 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life, 3 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 3.3 (SD 1.0) 92 3.3 (SD 1.0) 85 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life, 15 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 3.4 (SD 1.0) 83 3.4 (SD 1.1) 68 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, physical domain, 3 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 24.4 (SD 4.5) 93 24.6 (SD 4.7) 86 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, physical domain, 15 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 25.4 (SD 4.9) 83 25.6 (SD 4.5) 67 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, psychological domain, 3 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 18.8 (SD 3.7) 93 19.9 (SD 3.6) 86 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, psychological domain, 15 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 19.7 (SD 3.6) 82 20.0 (SD 3.8) 68 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social domain, 3 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 10.1 (SD 2.1) 93 10.0 (SD 2.2) 86 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social domain, 15 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 10.5 (SD 2.3) 83 10.1 (SD 2.2) 68 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environmental domain, 3 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 30.7 (SD 4.9) 93 31.6 (SD 4.5) 86 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environmental domain, 15 months, mean endpoint score Huijbers 2016 30.5 (SD 4.2) 83 31.9 (SD 4.0) 68 study with psychological co‐intervention; study authors reported no differences between groups
             
             
9. Social and occupational functioning            
LIFE, subject assessment score, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 3.08 (SD 1.17) 84 2.27 (SD 1.23) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
LIFE, interviewer assessment score, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 3.00 (SD 1.11) 84 2.23 (SD 1.14) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
LIFE, satisfaction assessment score, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 2.99 (SD 1.06) 84 2.24 (SD 1.08) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Interference with daily activities Perahia 2009 2.81 (SE 1.82) 142 3.16 (SE 1.74) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
10. Global severity of illness            
CGI‐I, mean endpoint score Keller 1998 2.7 (SD 1.5) 84 1.9 (SD 1.3) 77 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
CGI‐I, mean endpoint score Rickels 2010 3.29 (SE 0.19) 54 1.96 (SE 0.12) 82 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
CGI‐I, mean endpoint score Rickels 2010 2.78 (SE0.32) 34 2.20 (SE 0.41) 15 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Patient Global Impressions of improvement, endpoint score Perahia 2009 2.34 (SE 0.11) 142 1.72 (SE 0.11) 145 study authors reported a statistically significant advantage in favour of continuation of antidepressant
Symptom Questionnaire Somatic Subscale (SQ‐SS), mean change Perahia 2009 0.81 (SE 0.4) 142 0.79 (SD 0.39) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
11. Other reported outcomes            
VAS score, mean change Perahia 2009 4.57 (SD 1.86) 142 3.92 (SE 1.78) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
Headache, mean change Perahia 2009 2.80 (SE 1.80) 142 4.77 (SE 1.72) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
Back pain, mean change Perahia 2009 3.40 (SE 1.72) 142 1.77 (SE 1.65) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
Schoulder pain, mean change Perahia 2009 3.02 (SE 1.62) 142 0.51 (SE 1.55) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
Pain while awake, mean change Perahia 2009 4.69 (SE 2.19) 142 3.64 (SE 2.10) 145 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
Comparison 3: discontinuation with psychological support vs continuation of long‐term antidepressants
1. Successful discontinuation rate            
Mean number of days on antidepressant treatment Kuyken 2008 266.5 (SD 167.7) 61 411.4 (SD 91.8) 62 study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group
             
2. Relapse rate            
Total number of relapses/recurrences, mean Kuyken 2008 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.69) 61 1.57 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.81) 62 study authors reported no differences between groups
Duration of relapses/recurrences (period of time in months that a person met SCID criteria), mean Kuyken 2008 3.36 (95% CI 2.2 to 4.5) 61 3.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.9) 62 study authors reported no differences between groups
Severity of relapses/recurrences (scale range between 1 and 4: mild, moderate, severe without psychotic feature, severe with psychotic features), mean Kuyken 2008 1.79 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.02) 61 1.72 (95% CI 1.48 to 1.95) 62 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
             
5. Depressive symptoms            
HAM‐D, mean score at 1 month Kuyken 2015 6.3 (SD 5.6) 186 7.4 (SD 6.3) 183 study authors reported no differences between groups
HAM‐D, mean score at 9 months Kuyken 2015 6 (SD 5.5) 177 5.6 (SD 6.4) 175 study authors reported no differences between groups
HAM‐D, mean score at 12 months Kuyken 2015 5.7 (SD 5.7) 184 4.7(SD 5.2) 181 study authors reported no differences between groups
HAM‐D, mean score at 18 months Kuyken 2015 5.7 (SD 5.7) 184 5.3 (SD 6.1) 174 study authors reported no differences between groups
BDI, mean score at 1 month Kuyken 2015 9.9 (SD 9.7) 174 13.9 (SD 10.9) 174 study authors reported no differences between groups
BDI, mean score at 9 months Kuyken 2015 11 (SD 10.5) 151 10.5 (SD 9.7) 142 study authors reported no differences between groups
BDI, mean score at 12 months Kuyken 2015 10.7 (SD 10) 167 11.3 (SD 9.2) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
BDI, mean score at 18 months Kuyken 2015 11.7 (SD 10.6) 142 11.3 (SD 10.7) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
BDI, mean score at 24 months Kuyken 2015 11.6 (SD 10.9) 169 11.9 (SD 10.7) 167 study authors reported no differences between groups
HAM‐D, mean score at 1 month Kuyken 2008 5.83 (95% CI 4.49 to 7.3) 59 7.75 (95% CI 5.86 to 9.34) 59 study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group
BDI, mean score at 1 month Kuyken 2008 13.12 (95% CI 10.27 to 15.97) 59 17.47 (95% CI 14.31 to 20.62) 58 study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group
BDI, mean score at 15 months Kuyken 2008 12.61 (95% CI 9.96 to 15.26) 59 17.02 (95% CI 13.16 to 20.87) 58 study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group
             
             
8. Quality of life            
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.8 (SD 0.8) 174 3.8 (SD 0.9) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.7 (SD 0.9) 151 3.9 (SD 0.8) 141 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.7 (SD 0.9) 166 3.9 (SD 0.9) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.7 (SD 0.9) 141 3.9 (SD 0.9) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q1, overall perception at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.7 (SD 0.9) 169 3.8 (SD 1) 167 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.1 (SD 1) 174 3.2 (SD 1) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.1 (SD 1.1) 151 3.2 (SD 1) 141 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.2 (SD 1.1) 166 3.3 (SD 1.0) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.2 (SD 1.0) 141 3.3 (SD 1.1) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐Q2, overall perception of quality of life at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 3.1 (SD 1.0) 169 3.2 (SD 1) 167 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, physical health domain (e.g. How satisfied are you with your sleep?) at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 14.3 (SD 3.3) 174 14.3 (SD 3.0) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, physical health domain at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 14.2 (SD 3.3) 151 14.8 (SD 3.2) 141 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, physical health domain at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 14.1 (SD 3.4) 166 14.7 (SD 3.3) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, physical health domain at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.9 (SD 3.5) 141 14.7 (SD 3.3) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, psychological domain (e.g. How much do you enjoy life?) at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.4 (SD 2.6) 174 12.6 (SD 2.8) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, psychological domain at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.3 (SD 3) 151 13.4 (SD 2.7) 141 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, psychological domain at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.3 (SD 2.9) 166 13.3 (SD 2.7) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, psychological domain at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 12.9 (SD 2.8) 141 13.3 (SD 3) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social relationships domain (e.g. How satisfied are you with your personal relationship?) at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.8 (SD 2.9) 174 13.3 (SD 3.4) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social relationships domain at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.7 (SD 3.4) 151 14 (SD 3.4) 141 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social relationships domain at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.9 (SD 3.5) 166 14.2 (SD 3.3) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social relationships domain at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 14 (SD 3.4) 141 14.2 (SD 3.4) 148 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, social relationships domain at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 13.7 (3.3) 169 13.9 (SD 3.5) 167 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environment domain (e.g. How satisfied are you with your access to health services?) at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 15.2 (SD 2.4) 174 15.3 (SD 2.5) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environment domain at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 15.4 (SD 2.6) 151 15.7 (SD 2.3) 141 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environment domain at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 15.2 (SD 2.6) 166 15.6 (SD 2.6) 157 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environment domain at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 15.3 (SD 2.6) 141 15.7 (SD 2.6) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL, environment domain at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 14.9 (SD 2.6) 169 15.7 (SD 2.7) 167 study authors reported no differences between groups
EQ‐5D, tariff at MBCT + 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.727 (SD 0.295) 174 0.760 (SD 0.226) 173 study authors reported no differences between groups
EQ‐5D, tariff at 9 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.735 (SD 0.256) 151 0.733 (SD 0.234) 142 study authors reported no differences between groups
EQ‐5D, tariff at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.721 (SD 0.293) 167 0.764 (SD 0.248) 156 study authors reported no differences between groups
EQ‐5D, tariff at 18 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.723 (SD 0.282) 142 0.768 (SD 0.243) 149 study authors reported no differences between groups
EQ‐5D, tariff at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.715 (SD 0.310) 169 0.757 (SD 0.266) 166 study authors reported no differences between groups
WHO QoL‐BREF, psychological domain at MBCT at 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 24.08 (95% CI 22.62 to 25.53) 60 22.86 (95% CI 21.34 to 24.39) 59 study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group
WHO QoL‐BREF, psychological domain at 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 18.88 (95% CI 17.88 to 19.89) 60 17.47 (95% CI 16.24 to 18.70) 59 study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group
WHO QoL‐BREF, social domain at 1 month, mean score Kuyken 2015 10.09 (95% CI 9.55 to 10.64) 60 9.07 (95% CI 8.37 to 9.77) 59 study authors reported no differences between groups
             
11. Other reported outcomes            
Medical comorbidity (measured by medical symptom list) at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 21 (SD 14) 167 19.3 (SD 13.7) 156 study authors reported no differences between groups
Medical comorbidity (measured by medical symptom list) at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 22.2 (SD 14.6) 169 21.7 (SD 16.3) 167 study authors reported no differences between groups
Psychiatric comorbidity (number of comorbid diagnoses) at 12 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.1 (SD 0.3) 196 0.1 (SD 0.4) 169 study authors reported no differences between groups
Psychiatric comorbidity (number of comorbid diagnoses) at 24 months, mean score Kuyken 2015 0.3 (SD 0.7) 183 0.3 (SD 0.6) 183 study authors reported no differences between groups
Psychiatric comorbidity (number of comorbid diagnoses) at 15 months, mean score Kuyken 2008 0.34 (SD 0.64) NR 0.7 (SD 1.01) NR study authors reported a statistically significant difference in favour of discontinuation group (N = 114; number for each group not reported)
Subjective distress (rated by patients on a scale of 1 (the least distressing episode of depression I have ever experienced) to 100 (the most distressing episode of depression I have ever experienced)) Kuyken 2008 59.65 (95% CI 51.82 to 67.18) 61 62.56 (95% CI 56.16 to 68.96) 62 study authors reported a non‐statistically significant difference
Comparison 4: discontinuation with minimal intervention vs usual care            
11. Other reported outcomes            
Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) (frequency and severity of symptoms of worrying) at endpoint, mean score Eveleigh 2018 42 (SD 14.3) 50 39.3 (SD 12.7) 54 no conclusions made by study authors
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNES) for assessing expectations and distress associated with negative evaluations by others Eveleigh 2018 10.3 (SD 11.0) 54 8.4 (SD 10.1) 56 no conclusions made by study authors

BDI: Beck Depression Inventory.

CGI‐I: Clinical Global Impression of Improvement Scale.

DESS: Discontinuation‐Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale.

EQ‐5D: EuroQoL Group Quality of Life Questionnaire based on 5 dimensions.

GHQ: General Health Questionnaire.

HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

HAM‐D: Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

IDS‐SR: Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Self‐Report.

LES‐S: Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Scale.

LIFE: Longitudinal Internal Follow‐up Evaluation.

MADRS: Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale.

MBCT: mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy.

PDSS: Panic Disorder Severity Scale.

Q‐LES‐Q: Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire.

SCID: scheduled clinical interview for DSM‐IV.

SD: standard deviation.

SE: standard error.

SF‐36: Short Form 36.

SQ: Symptom Questionnaire.

SQ‐SS: Symptom Questionnaire Somatic Subscale.

VAS: visual analog scale.

WHO QoL: World Health Organization Quality of Life.

WHO QoL‐BREF: World Health Organization Cross‐Cultural Comparisons of Quality of Life.