Cargando…
Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23723742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454 |
_version_ | 1782271326322425856 |
---|---|
author | Barth, Jürgen Munder, Thomas Gerger, Heike Nüesch, Eveline Trelle, Sven Znoj, Hansjörg Jüni, Peter Cuijpers, Pim |
author_facet | Barth, Jürgen Munder, Thomas Gerger, Heike Nüesch, Eveline Trelle, Sven Znoj, Hansjörg Jüni, Peter Cuijpers, Pim |
author_sort | Barth, Jürgen |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d = −0.62 to d = −0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d = 0.01 to d = −0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d = −0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [−0.54 to −0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (Δd = 0.29 [−0.01 to 0.58]; p = 0.063) and large size (Δd = 0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p = 0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (Δd = 0.38 [−0.06 to 0.87]; p = 0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3665892 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36658922013-05-30 Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis Barth, Jürgen Munder, Thomas Gerger, Heike Nüesch, Eveline Trelle, Sven Znoj, Hansjörg Jüni, Peter Cuijpers, Pim PLoS Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d = −0.62 to d = −0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d = 0.01 to d = −0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d = −0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [−0.54 to −0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (Δd = 0.29 [−0.01 to 0.58]; p = 0.063) and large size (Δd = 0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p = 0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (Δd = 0.38 [−0.06 to 0.87]; p = 0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary Public Library of Science 2013-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3665892/ /pubmed/23723742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454 Text en © 2013 Barth et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Barth, Jürgen Munder, Thomas Gerger, Heike Nüesch, Eveline Trelle, Sven Znoj, Hansjörg Jüni, Peter Cuijpers, Pim Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title | Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23723742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barthjurgen comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT munderthomas comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT gergerheike comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT nuescheveline comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT trellesven comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT znojhansjorg comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT junipeter comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis AT cuijperspim comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis |