Berking 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Individual randomised controlled trial, Germany
Participants	118 patients in a cognitive‐behavioural oriented impatient setting
Interventions	Half of the therapists were provided with systematic feedback on their patients’ progress.   Intervention features Multiple complex feedback (multiple PROMs at multiple times)  PROM(s) used as intervention: 10‐Item‐Form des Emotionalitätsinventars (EMI‐B), 11‐Item‐Form des Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), 12‐Item‐Form des Inventars Interpersonaler Probleme (IIP), 10‐Item‐Form des Inkongruenzfragebogens (INK). Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Domain/Disease specific (Mental health)   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (e.g. waiting room, office, etc) How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Paper   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Routine systematic feedback Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores
Outcomes	Main outcome: impact of psychotherapy measured with: 10‐Item‐Form des Emotionalitätsinventars (EMI‐B); 11‐Item‐Form des Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI); 12‐Item‐Form des Inventars Interpersonaler Probleme (IIP); 10‐Item‐Form des Inkongruenzfragebogens (INK).
Notes	Funding information not reported. Study period not reported. Conflicts of interest not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Tossing a coin
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Tossing a coin
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Could not occur given the nature of the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of the intervention blinding of outcomes not possible: PROM used for feedback also used to assess outcome, patients were aware they received the intervention.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Unclear risk	Unclear
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No significant differences between the control and experimental groups
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Pre and post data sets reported
Was study protected against contamination	Unclear risk	Not enough information to make a decision
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No evidence of selective reporting