Additional files
Additional file 1 – Search strategy
PubMed 16-08-2012 (via NCBI)
Concept ‘depression’
1. “Depression”[MeSH]
2. "Depression, Postpartum"[Mesh]
3. "Depressive Disorder, Major"[Mesh]
4. "Dysthymic Disorder"[Mesh]
5. Depress*
6. Dysthymi*
7. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6
Concept ‘effectiveness’
8. "Evaluation Studies as Topic"[Mesh]
9. "Treatment Outcome"[Mesh]
10. "Program Evaluation"[Mesh]
11. "Comparative Effectiveness Research"[Mesh]
12. "Clinical Trials as Topic"[Mesh]
13. "Clinical Trial" [Publication Type]
14. 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12 OR 13
Concept ‘IPT’
15. Interpersonal
16. “Psychotherapy”[MeSH]
17. Interpersonal therapy
18. Interpersonal psychotherapy
19. IPT
20. 15 OR 16 OR 17 OR 18 OR 19
21. 7 AND 14 AND 20
22. “Adolescent”[MeSH]
23. “Aged”[MeSH]
24. 22 OR 23
25. (21) NOT 24
Limits
English, Dutch, Adult: 19-44 years, Middle Aged: 45-64 years, Publication Date from
1970/01/01 to 2012/08/01
Search String (with limitations):
(#21) NOT #24 AND (("1970/01/01"[PDAT] : "2012/08/01"[PDAT]) AND (Dutch[lang] OR
English[lang]) AND ("adult"[MeSH Terms:noexp] OR "middle aged"[MeSH Terms]))
Overall results: 2469
1
PsycINFO 21-08-2012
Concept ‘depression’
1. exp Major Depression/
2. exp Postpartum Depression/
3. Dysthymi*.af.
4. 1 or 2 or 3
Concept ‘effectiveness’
5. exp Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation/
6. exp Mental Health Program Evaluation/
7. exp Psychotherapeutic Processes/
8. exp Treatment/
9. exp Treatment Outcomes/
10. exp Psychotherapeutic Outcomes/
11. exp Clinical Trials/
12. 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11
Concept ‘IPT’
13. exp Interpersonal Psychotherapy/
14. interpersonal therapy.af.
15. interpersonal psychotherapy.af.
16. IPT.af.
17. 13 or 14 or 15 or 16
18. 4 AND 12 AND 17
Limits
Publication Year from: 1970-Current; Age Groups: Adulthood (18 yrs & older), Young
Adulthood (18-29 yrs), Thirties (30-39 yrs), Middle Age (40-64 yrs); Languages: English,
Dutch
Results after limitations: 993
Overall results after deleting duplicates: 3329
Additional file 2 – Checklist
The Delphi List
1. Was a method of randomization performed?
2. Was the treatment allocation concealed?
3. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic
indicators?
4. Were the eligibility criteria specified?
5. Was the outcome assessor blinded?
6. Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome
measures?
7. Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis?
2
Risk of bias tool
1. Random sequence generation (selection bias)
2. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
3. Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
4. Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Additional file 3 – List of excluded studies
Excluded studies with reason for exclusion
Study
Ablon, et al., 2002
Agosti, et al., 1997
Barber, et al., 1996
Blanco, et al., 2001
Blom, et al., 2010
Blom, et al., 1996
Blom, et al., 2007
Bressi, et al., 2010
Brown, et al., 1996
Brown, et al., 1999
Browne, et al., 2002
Bulmash, et al., 2009
Carter, et al., 2011
Cascalenda, et al., 2002
Coulehan, et al., 1997
Croghan, et al., 1999
Cuijpers, Dekker, et al., 2009
Cuijpers, et al., 2005
Cuijpers, et al., 2011
Cuijpers, Van Straten, Bohlmeijer, et al., 2010
Cuijpers, Van Straten, Hollon, et al., 2010
Cuijpers, Van Straten, Schuurmans, et al., 2010
Cuijpers, Van Straten, Van Oppen, et al., 2008
Cuijpers, Van Straten, et al., 2009
Cuijpers, Van Straten, Warmerdam, et al., 2008
De Maat, et al., 2007
De Mello, et al., 2005
De Mello, et al., 2001
Dorrepaal, et al., 1998
Dunner, 2001
Elkin, et al., 1995
Frank, et al., 1990
Frank, et al., 2000
Godfrin, et al., 2010
Guidi, et al., 2011
Hollon, et al., 2005
Hollon, et al., 2010
Imber, et al., 1990
Jakobsen, et al., 2011
Kim, 2003
Reason for exclusion
Based on other study
Based on other study
Based on other study
No research data
Based on other study
No comparison in the study
Based on other study
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Based on other study
Based on other study
Wrong diagnosis
Wrong aim of the study
Based on other study
Review and/or meta-analysis
Based on other study
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Review and/or meta-analysis
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
No research data
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Review and/or meta-analysis
No research data
Based on other study
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Wrong aim of the study
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Based on other study
Review and/or meta-analysis
Based on other study
3
Kingston, et al., 2007
Kotova, 2005
Kriston, et al., 2010
Kushner, et al., 2009
Lave, et al., 1998
Markowitz, 1994
Markowitz, 1996
Markowitz, et al., 2005
Miller, et al., 1996
Pampallona, et al., 2004
Reinceke, et al., 2000
Reynolds, et al., 1996
Schene, et al., 2007
Schulberg, et al., 1997
Schulberg, et al., 1995
Segal, et al., 2001
Shea, et al., 1992
Svanborg, et al., 2008
Thase, et al., 1997
Van Roijen, et al., 2006
Watkins, et al., 2003
Weissman, 2007
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Review and/or meta-analysis
Protocol for a study
Wrong aim of the study
Based on other study
Wrong diagnosis
Wrong diagnosis
Wrong diagnosis
No research data
Review and/or meta-analysis
No research data
Based on other study
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Wrong aim of the study
Based on other study
Based on other study
Wrong diagnosis
Review and/or meta-analysis
Not IPT as described in eligibility criteria
Based on other study
Review and/or meta-analysis
4