Table A8:

GRADE Evidence Profile for Comparison of Neuropharmagen-Guided Treatment Selection and Treatment as Usual—Change in Depression Score

No. of Studies (Design)	Risk of Bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication Bias	Upgrade Considerations	Quality
17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
2 (RCTs)	Serious limitations (−;1)a	No serious limitationsb	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (−;1)cd	Undetected	None	⊕⊕ Low
9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire
1 (RCT)	Very serious limitations (−;2)a	Nonee	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (−;1)f	Undetected	None	⊕ Very Low
Clinical Global Impression Scale–Severity
2 (RCTs)	Serious limitations (−;1)a	No serious limitationsb	No serious limitations	Serious limitations (−;1)c	Undetected	None	⊕⊕ Low

Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

^aSee Risk of Bias Table A5. Han et al was considered to have very serious limitations related to risk of bias, but given the Perez et al study was much larger, we chose to downgrade only one level to reflect risk of bias in that study.

^bInsufficient data were available to judge consistency of data between studies, and findings were downgraded owing to uncertainty between study estimates.

^cSummary estimates or measures of variance between groups were not reported for the largest trial and therefore could not be appropriately assessed.

^dBased on unadjusted graphic values, the largest trial by Perez et al⁶² did not achieve statistical significance or a clinically meaningful threshold of a 2- to 3-point difference in mean scores for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

^eNot evaluable owing to single study.

^fSmall study which would not meet optimal information size. Summary estimate with confidence intervals could not be calculated given adjustments in data, and authors did not report variance around estimates to allow us to appropriately assess imprecision. Results were not statistically significant.