Stefan Elbers

35 Evaluating IMPT programmes over time Exploratory data analysis. To further explore the included cohorts, we developed an online multimedia appendix that contains interactive forest plots for each outcome, time-series and study characteristic tables. The appendix can be accessed via https:// datascience.hu.nl/rsconnect/impt-cohorts/. The time-series show the development over time of a measurement on a standardized scale (expressed as a percentage of the maximum score of each particular measurement instrument), as well as the raw scores and standard deviations. To standardize the scores, we obtained the distance of each mean and the unfavorable end of the scale, divided by the total distance of the scale and multiplied by 100. These plots also allow for the comparison of specific cohorts over time with respect to a particular outcome. To accommodate future updates of this systematic review, the appendix also contains contact information to encourage readers to pinpoint any inaccuracies or to suggest cohorts that have not yet been included in the current review. Lastly, all data extraction files are listed in this appendix, including any comments that have been made regarding handling specific difficulties with that specific cohort (e.g. dealing with change scores, or imputing missing SDs). Supplementary file 3 contains the R code that has been used for all analyses in this review as well as the deployment of the appendix. The most recent version can also be accessed in a Github repository via: https:// github.com/stefanelbers/impt.meta_analysis/tree/master/deployment. RESULTS Results of the Search The initial search was performed in May 2019 and was updated in May 2020 using the last date of the original search as the beginning date for the update. In total, the search yielded 31933 hits. After deduplication, 17988 studies remained. the screening of title and abstracts yielded 380 hits. In the final selection round, we obtained the full text versions and included 65 studies. 315 studies were excluded: 50 studies due to study design or publication type, 42 studies related to patient criteria, 89 studies due to intervention criteria, 89 studies because they did not include outcomes within the scope of this study or did not include a follow-up measurement of 12 months or longer, 38 studies were duplicates and 7 studies due to language or inclusion of patients with specific comorbidities. Seven of the included studies did not provide the necessary data (i.e. central tendency and measure of dispersion for each time point) to be included the quantitative analyses and were only included in the characteristics tables. The study flow is depicted in Figure 1.