Table A12:
GRADE Evidence Profile for the Comparison of Neuropharmagen-Guided Treatment Selection and Treatment as Usual – Response
| No. of Studies (Design) | Risk of Bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication Bias | Upgrade Considerations | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Based on 17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale | |||||||
| 2 (RCTs) | Very serious limitations (−;2)a | No serious limitationsb | No serious limitations | Serious limitations (−;1)c | Undetected | None | ⊕ Very Low |
| Response Based on Patient Global Impression of Improvement | |||||||
| 1 (RCT) | Serious limitations (−;1)a | No serious limitations | No serious limitations | Serious limitations (−;1)d | Undetected | None | ⊕⊕ Low |
Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
a
See Risk of Bias Table A5.
b
Insufficient data were provided by Han et al60 to assess effect size and confidence intervals.
c
Perez et al62 had wide confidence intervals surrounding effect estimate, including both benefit and harm with intervention. Only summary of effect and statistical significance was provided by Han et al.60
d
Confidence intervals are wide, spanning very large benefit to no effect.