Yager 1981.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA
Participants	150 patients from a University Medical Ambulatory Care Clinic, mostly related to chronic diseases (82%) Median age 56 years 71% female
Interventions	Assessing depression screening scores (Zung SDS) to patients Assessing Global Depression Index (GDI) to both patients and treating physician. Providing the results of patients' depression screening scores (Zung SDS) to physicians.   Intervention features Single complex feedback (multiple PROMs at a single time)  PROM(s) used as intervention: Zung self rating depression scale (SDS), Global Depression Index (GDI) Constructs measured: Symptoms 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: Once Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance
Outcomes	Main outcomes: effects of screening, feedback, and sensitisation on notation and treatment, physician‐patient agreement about patient depression
Notes	Funding source not reported. The study period was not reported. Conflicts of interest were not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Paper only states quote:"Patients were randomly assigned to one of six groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible due to study design (physicians either given the global depression index and/or the Zung self rating depression scale or not).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of intervention not possible to blind patients and personnel.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Unclear risk	No comparisons were made between groups
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	Some demographics provided but no indication of any significance testing for differences
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Was study protected against contamination	Unclear risk	Unclear as to whether the physicians knew which group they were in
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Tables do not provide summaries for each of the intervention group rather blocked them together