9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Absolute and relative outcomes of psychotherapies for eight mental disorders: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Psychotherapies are first‐line treatments for most mental disorders, but their absolute outcomes (i.e., response and remission rates) are not well studied, despite the relevance of such information for health care users, providers and policy makers. We aimed to examine absolute and relative outcomes of psychotherapies across eight mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive‐compulsive disorder (OCD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). We used a series of living systematic reviews included in the Metapsy initiative ( www.metapsy.org), with a common strategy for literature search, inclusion of studies and extraction of data, and a common format for the analyses. Literature search was conducted in major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up to January 1, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials comparing psychotherapies for any of the eight mental disorders, established by a diagnostic interview, with a control group (waitlist, care‐as‐usual, or pill placebo). We conducted random‐effects model pairwise meta‐analyses. The main outcome was the absolute rate of response (at least 50% symptom reduction between baseline and post‐test) in the treatment and control conditions. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk (RR) of response, and the number needed to treat (NNT). Random‐effects meta‐analyses of the included 441 trials (33,881 patients) indicated modest response rates for psychotherapies: 0.42 (95% CI: 0.39‐0.45) for MDD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33‐0.43) for PTSD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.30‐0.47) for OCD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33‐0.43) for panic disorder; 0.36 (95% CI: 0.30‐0.42) for GAD; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.29‐0.37) for social anxiety disorder; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.23‐0.42) for specific phobia; and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.15‐0.36) for BPD. Most sensitivity analyses broadly supported these findings. The RRs were significant for all disorders, except BPD. Our conclusion is that most psychotherapies for the eight mental disorders are effective compared with control conditions, but absolute response rates are modest. More effective treatments and interventions for those not responding to a first‐line treatment are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

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

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                World Psychiatry
                World Psychiatry
                Wiley
                1723-8617
                2051-5545
                June 2024
                May 10 2024
                June 2024
                : 23
                : 2
                : 267-275
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [2 ] International Institute for Psychotherapy Babeș‐Bolyai University Cluj‐Napoca Romania
                [3 ] Psychology & Digital Mental Health Care Technical University of Munich Munich Germany
                [4 ] Department of General Psychology University of Padua Padua Italy
                [5 ] Department of Clinical Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute Radboud University Nijmegen The Netherlands
                [6 ] Depression Expertise Center Pro Persona Mental Health Care Nijmegen The Netherlands
                [7 ] National Center for PTSD White River Junction VT USA
                [8 ] Department of Psychiatry Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Hanover NH USA
                [9 ] Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee WI USA
                [10 ] Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry University of Verona Verona Italy
                [11 ] Department of Global Health and Social Medicine Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA
                [12 ] Department of Psychosomatic Medicine Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany
                [13 ] Tennessee Institute for Gambling Education & Research, Department of Psychology University of Memphis Memphis TN USA
                [14 ] Research Department 113 Suicide Prevention, Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [15 ] Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
                [16 ] Department of Psychiatry Amsterdam University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [17 ] Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine and School of Public Health Kyoto Japan
                Article
                10.1002/wps.21203
                38727072
                8dfa17c0-916c-4b6f-b4e2-5dba41f9e3cd
                © 2024

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

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article