Summary of findings 1. Summary of findings table ‐ Psychological treatment compared to control for depression in patients with coronary artery disease.

Psychological treatment compared to control for depression in patients with coronary artery disease
Patient or population: health problem or population Setting: cardiology in‐ and outpatient Intervention: Psychological treatment Comparison: Control
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with Control	Risk with Psychological treatment
Depression symptoms ‐ short‐term assessed with: objective and self‐reported measures of depression symptoms, higher scores indicate more severe symptoms	‐	SMD 0.55 SD lower (0.92 lower to 0.19 lower)	‐	1226 (10 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b	There is low certainty evidence that psychological treatment may result in a moderate reduction in depression symptoms at the end of treatment.
Depression remission ‐ short term assessed with: below cut‐points on objective and self‐report measures of depression	319 per 1000	486 per 1000 (267 to 708)	OR 2.02 (0.78 to 5.19)	862 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,c	There is low certainty evidence that psychological treatment may result in no difference in depression remission at the end of treatment.
All‐cause mortality ‐ short‐term assessed with: mortality records	25 per 1000	8 per 1000 (1 to 50)	OR 0.31 (0.05 to 2.02)	324 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowd,e	The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of psychological treatment on all‐cause mortality at the end of treatment.
Cardiovascular mortality ‐ long‐term assessed with: cause of death according to standardised criteria on mortality records	85 per 1000	72 per 1000 (54 to 93)	OR 0.83 (0.62 to 1.10)	2720 (2 RCTs)	‐	No data for cardiovascular mortality at end of treatment in trials comparing psychological interventions versus usual care
Myocardial infarction ‐ short term (end of treatment) ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data for occurrence of myocardial infarction at end of treatment in trials comparing psychological interventions versus usual care
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_427596582080189491.

^a Risk of bias rated down one level ‐ trials that contributed to this outcome were rated as unclear risk of bias
^b Inconsistency rated down one level ‐ though confidence intervals generally overlapped, there was considerable unexplained statistical heterogeneity
^c Imprecision rated down one level ‐ confidence intervals encompass an adverse effect to beneficial effect
^d Risk of bias rated down two levels ‐ most trials that contributed to this outcome were rated as high or unclear risk of bias
^e Imprecision rated down two levels ‐ sparse events and wide confidence intervals encompass an adverse effect to beneficial effect