We thank Dr Pouwer for his interest in our review [
1,
2]. Prompted by his claim that four potentially relevant studies might have been missed [
3‐
7], three of the authors of the original paper (J.V., A.K., J.A.) undertook an independent review of the eligibility of the trials based on the standardized method described in the paper. The three independently elicited assessments were then discussed and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. For studies to be included in our review they needed to meet all of the inclusion criteria as already listed in the paper. In particular: (a) patients participating in those studies had to be attending a health practitioner’s office, an outpatient clinic, an emergency room, or a hospital; (b) the studies had to compare replicable interventions consisting of administration of standardized patient-reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaire(s) and subsequent feedback to health care professionals versus routine clinical practice without administration of any PRO measures; and (c) the questionnaire results were disclosed only to the clinicians in the intervention group, with or without additional education concerning the optimal application of this information. …
