Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.

<h4>Background</h4>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 ind...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jürgen Barth, Thomas Munder, Heike Gerger, Eveline Nüesch, Sven Trelle, Hansjörg Znoj, Peter Jüni, Pim Cuijpers
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:
R
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa2021-11-18T05:42:35ZComparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.1549-12771549-167610.1371/journal.pmed.1001454https://doaj.org/article/c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa2013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23723742/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1549-1277https://doaj.org/toc/1549-1676<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.Jürgen BarthThomas MunderHeike GergerEveline NüeschSven TrelleHansjörg ZnojPeter JüniPim CuijpersPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRENPLoS Medicine, Vol 10, Iss 5, p e1001454 (2013)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine
R
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Jürgen Barth
Thomas Munder
Heike Gerger
Eveline Nüesch
Sven Trelle
Hansjörg Znoj
Peter Jüni
Pim Cuijpers
Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
description <h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.
format article
author Jürgen Barth
Thomas Munder
Heike Gerger
Eveline Nüesch
Sven Trelle
Hansjörg Znoj
Peter Jüni
Pim Cuijpers
author_facet Jürgen Barth
Thomas Munder
Heike Gerger
Eveline Nüesch
Sven Trelle
Hansjörg Znoj
Peter Jüni
Pim Cuijpers
author_sort Jürgen Barth
title 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_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_sort comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2013
url https://doaj.org/article/c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa
work_keys_str_mv AT jurgenbarth comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT thomasmunder comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT heikegerger comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT evelinenuesch comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT sventrelle comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT hansjorgznoj comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT peterjuni comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT pimcuijpers comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
_version_ 1718424815023423488