Puschner 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA
Participants	294 adults receiving inpatient mental health care.
Interventions	Continous feedback of patient‐reported treatment outcome information to physicians in the intervention arm.   Intervention features Multiple complex feedback (multiple PROMs at multiple times)  PROM(s) used as intervention: EB‐45, the German version of the Outcome Questionnaire 45.2 (OQ‐45.2) 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): Electronic   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Administered weekly, feedback continuous until discharge Who information fed back to: Clinicians, Patients Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores, Interpretation guidance, Management recommendations
Outcomes	Main outcome: measured by the (German version of OQ‐45)
Notes	The study was funded by German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number: 01GL0504). The study period was not reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	An independent unit (Ulm Universitys Institute for Biometrics) randomised all clinicians at the wards where the study took place to either intervention or control group.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Cluster‐randomisation with the therapists
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of intervention not possible to blind patients and personnel.
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	High risk	Statistically significant differences were found for the outcomes
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Statistical differences were found for education and diagnosis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low dropout
Was study protected against contamination	Low risk	Cluster‐randomisation with clinicians as the unit of randomisation. there were changes of patients between clinicians during inpatient treatment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	None reported