• Confirm eligibility of the study for the review
• Reason for exclusion

• Study design (parallel, factorial, crossover, cluster aspects of design for randomized trials, and/or study design features for non-randomized studies; single or multicentre study; if multicentre, number of recruiting centres)
• Recruitment and sampling procedures used 
• Enrolment start and end dates; length of participant follow-up
• Details of random sequence generation, allocation sequence concealment, and masking for randomized trials, and methods used to prevent and control for confounding, selection biases, and information biases for non-randomized studies*
• Methods used to prevent and address missing data*
• Statistical analysis:
• Unit of analysis (e.g. individual participant, clinic, village, body part)
• Statistical methods used if computed effect estimates are extracted from reports, including any covariates included in the statistical model
• Likelihood of reporting and other biases*
• Source(s) of funding or other material support for the study
• Authors’ financial relationship and other potential conflicts of interest

• Setting
• Region(s) and country/countries from which study participants were recruited
• Study eligibility criteria, including diagnostic criteria
• Characteristics of participants at the beginning (or baseline) of the study (e.g. age, sex, comorbidity, socio-economic status)

Description of the intervention(s) and comparison intervention(s), ideally with sufficient detail for replication:

• Components, routes of delivery, doses, timing, frequency, intervention protocols, length of intervention
• Factors relevant to implementation (e.g. staff qualifications, equipment requirements)
• Integrity of interventions (i.e. the degree to which specified procedures or components of the intervention were implemented as planned)
• Description of co-interventions
• Definition of ‘control’ groups (e.g. no intervention, placebo, minimally active comparator, or components of usual care)
• Components, dose, timing, frequency
• For observational studies: description of how intervention status was assessed; length of exposure, cumulative exposure

For each pre-specified outcome domain (e.g. anxiety) in the systematic review:

• Whether there is evidence that the outcome domain was assessed (especially important if the outcome was assessed but the results not presented; see Chapter 13)
• Measurement tool or instrument (including definition of clinical outcomes or endpoints); for a scale, name of the scale (e.g. the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), upper and lower limits, and whether a high or low score is favourable, definitions of any thresholds if appropriate
• Specific metric (e.g. post-intervention anxiety, or change in anxiety from baseline to a post-intervention time point, or post-intervention presence of anxiety (yes/no))
• Method of aggregation (e.g. mean and standard deviation of anxiety scores in each group, or proportion of people with anxiety)
• Timing of outcome measurements (e.g. assessments at end of eight-week intervention period, events occurring during the eight-week intervention period)
• Adverse outcomes need special attention depending on whether they are collected systematically or non-systematically (e.g. by voluntary report)

For each group, and for each outcome at each time point: number of participants randomly assigned and included in the analysis; and number of participants who withdrew, were lost to follow-up or were excluded (with reasons for each)

• Summary data for each group (e.g. 2×2 table for dichotomous data; means and standard deviations for continuous data)
• Between-group estimates that quantify the effect of the intervention on the outcome, and their precision (e.g. risk ratio, odds ratio, mean difference)
• If subgroup analysis is planned, the same information would need to be extracted for each participant subgroup

• Key conclusions of the study authors
• Reference to other relevant studies
• Correspondence required
• Miscellaneous comments from the study authors or by the review authors