For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
34
views
97
references
 Top references
cited by
142
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      3,421
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A network meta‐analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression

      Author(s): 1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7
      Publication date Created:
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: World Psychiatry
      Publisher: Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          No network meta‐analysis has examined the relative effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression, while this is a very important clinical issue. We conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases to identify randomized trials in which a psychotherapy and a pharmacotherapy for the acute or long‐term treatment of depression were compared with each other, or in which the combination of a psychotherapy and a pharmacotherapy was compared with either one alone. The main outcome was treatment response (50% improvement between baseline and endpoint). Remission and acceptability (defined as study drop‐out for any reason) were also examined. Possible moderators that were assessed included chronic and treatment‐resistant depression and baseline severity of depression. Data were pooled as relative risk (RR) using a random‐effects model. A total of 101 studies with 11,910 patients were included. Depression in most studies was moderate to severe. In the network meta‐analysis, combined treatment was more effective than psychotherapy alone (RR=1.27; 95% CI: 1.14‐1.39) and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.14‐1.37) in achieving response at the end of treatment. No significant difference was found between psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.99; 95% CI: 0.92‐1.08). Similar results were found for remission. Combined treatment (RR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.05‐1.45) and psychotherapy alone (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.02‐1.32) were more acceptable than pharmacotherapy. Results were similar for chronic and treatment‐resistant depression. The combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy seems to be the best choice for patients with moderate depression. More research is needed on long‐term effects of treatments (including cost‐effectiveness), on the impact of specific pharmacological and non‐pharmacological approaches, and on the effects in specific populations of patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references97

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Severity classification on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

          Mark Zimmerman, Jennifer H Martinez, Diane Young … (2013)
          Symptom severity as a moderator of treatment response has been the subject of debate over the past 20 years. Each of the meta- and mega-analyses examining the treatment significance of depression severity used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), wholly, or in part, to define severity, though the cutoff used to define severe depression varied. There is limited empirical research establishing cutoff scores for bands of severity on the HAMD. The goal of the study is to empirically establish cutoff scores on the HAMD in their allocation of patients to severity groups. Six hundred twenty-seven outpatients with current major depressive disorder were evaluated with a semi-structured diagnostic interview. Scores on the 17-item HAMD were derived from ratings according to the conversion method described by Endicott et al. (1981). The patients were also rated on the Clinical Global Index of Severity (CGI). Receiver operating curves were computed to identify the cutoff that optimally discriminated between patients with mild vs. moderate and moderate vs. severe depression. HAMD scores were significantly lower in patients with mild depression than patients with moderate depression, and patients with moderate depression scored significantly lower than patients with severe depression. The cutoff score on the HAMD that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity was 17 for the comparison of mild vs. moderate depression and 24 for the comparison of moderate vs. severe depression. The present study was conducted in a single outpatient practice in which the majority of patients were white, female, and had health insurance. Although the study was limited to a single site, a strength of the recruitment procedure was that the sample was not selected for participation in a treatment study, and exclusion and inclusion criteria did not reduce the representativeness of the patient groups. The analyses were based on HAMD scores extracted from ratings on the SADS. However, we used Endicott et al.'s (1981) empirically established formula for deriving a HAMD score from SADS ratings, and our results concurred with other small studies of the mean and median HAMD scores in severity groups. Based on this large study of psychiatric outpatients with major depressive disorder we recommend the following severity ranges for the HAMD: no depression (0-7); mild depression (8-16); moderate depression (17-23); and severe depression (≥24). Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
          Article 0 comments Cited 408 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Internet‐delivered psychological treatments: from innovation to implementation

            Gerhard Andersson, Nickolai Titov, Blake Dear … (2019)
            Internet interventions, and in particular Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT), have existed for at least 20 years. Here we review the treatment approach and the evidence base, arguing that ICBT can be viewed as a vehicle for innovation. ICBT has been developed and tested for several psychiatric and somatic conditions, and direct comparative studies suggest that therapist-guided ICBT is more effective than a waiting list for anxiety disorders and depression, and tends to be as effective as face-to-face CBT. Studies on the possible harmful effects of ICBT are also reviewed: a significant minority of people do experience negative effects, although rates of deterioration appear similar to those reported for face-to-face treatments and lower than for control conditions. We further review studies on change mechanisms and conclude that few, if any, consistent moderators and mediators of change have been identified. A recent trend to focus on knowledge acquisition is considered, and a discussion on the possibilities and hurdles of implementing ICBT is presented. The latter includes findings suggesting that attitudes toward ICBT may not be as positive as when using modern information technology as an adjunct to face-to-face therapy (i.e., blended treatment). Finally, we discuss future directions, including the role played by technology and machine learning, blended treatment, adaptation of treatment for minorities and non-Western settings, other therapeutic approaches than ICBT (including Internet-delivered psychodynamic and interpersonal psychotherapy as well as acceptance and commitment therapy), emerging regulations, and the importance of reporting failed trials.
            Article 0 comments Cited 277 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient preference for psychological vs pharmacologic treatment of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analytic review.

              R Kathryn McHugh, Sarah Whitton, Andrew Peckham … (2013)
              Evidence-based practice involves the consideration of efficacy and effectiveness, clinical expertise, and patient preference in treatment selection. However, patient preference for psychiatric treatment has been understudied. The aim of this meta-analytic review was to provide an estimate of the proportion of patients preferring psychological treatment relative to medication for psychiatric disorders. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Collaboration library through August 2011 for studies written in English that assessed adult patient preferences for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. The following search terms and subject headings were used in combination: patient preference, consumer preference, therapeutics, psychotherapy, drug therapy, mental disorders, depression, anxiety, insomnia, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, substance-related disorder, eating disorder, and personality disorder. In addition, the reference sections of identified articles were examined to locate any additional articles not captured by this search. Studies that assessed preferred type of treatment and included at least 1 psychological treatment and 1 pharmacologic treatment were included. Of the 644 articles identified, 34 met criteria for inclusion. Authors extracted relevant data including the proportion of participants reporting preference for psychological or pharmacologic treatment. The proportion of adult patients preferring psychological treatment was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.69-0.80), which was significantly higher than equivalent preference (ie, higher than 0.50; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses suggested that younger patients (P = .05) and women (P < .01) were significantly more likely to choose psychological treatment. A preference for psychological treatment was consistently evident in both treatment-seeking and unselected (ie, non-treatment-seeking) samples (P < .001 for both) but was somewhat stronger for unselected samples. Aggregation of patient preferences across diverse settings yielded a significant 3-fold preference for psychological treatment. Given evidence for enhanced outcomes among those receiving their preferred psychiatric treatment and the trends for decreasing utilization of psychotherapy, strategies to maximize the linkage of patients to preferred care are needed. © Copyright 2013 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
              Article 0 comments Cited 245 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: World Psychiatry
                Abbreviated Title: World Psychiatry
                Publisher: Wiley
                ISSN (Print): 1723-8617
                ISSN (Electronic): 2051-5545
                Publication date Created: January 10 2020
                Publication date Created: February 2020
                Publication date (Electronic): January 10 2020
                Publication date (Print): February 2020
                Volume: 19
                Issue: 1
                Pages: 92-107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental PsychologyAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Data ScienceInstitute of Statistical Mathematics Tokyo Japan
                [3 ]Department of PsychiatryAmsterdam UMC (location VUmc) Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Anatomy and NeurosciencesAmsterdam UMC (location VUmc) Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [5 ]Department of Psychiatry Warneford Hospital, University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [6 ]Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital Oxford UK
                [7 ]Department of Health Promotion and Human BehaviorKyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, School of Public Health Kyoto Japan
                Article
                DOI: 10.1002/wps.20701
                PMC ID: 6953550
                PubMed ID: 31922679
                SO-VID: 56a413d6-3680-4711-9660-322fe579e471
                Copyright © © 2020
                License:

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content3,421

                See all similar

                Cited by144

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors2,155

                See all reference authors