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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barth, Jürgen, Munder, Thomas, Gerger, Heike, Nüesch, Eveline, Trelle, Sven, Znoj, Hansjörg, Jüni, Peter, Cuijpers, Pim
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