| 1. |
- Cuijpers, P, et al.
(författare)
-
A meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioural therapy for adult depression, alone and in comparison with other treatments
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. - : SAGE Publications. - 0706-7437. ; 58:7, s. 376-385
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- No recent meta-analysis has examined the effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for adult depression. We decided to conduct such an updated meta-analysis. Methods: Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane library). We included studies examining the effects of CBT, compared with control groups, other psychotherapies, and pharmacotherapy. Results: A total of 115 studies met inclusion criteria. The mean effect size (ES) of 94 comparisons from 75 studies of CBT and control groups was Hedges g = 0.71 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.79), which corresponds with a number needed to treat of 2.6. However, this may be an overestimation of the true ES as we found strong indications for publication bias (ES after adjustment for bias was g = 0.53), and because the ES of higher-quality studies was significantly lower ( g = 0.53) than for lower-quality studies ( g = 0.90). The difference between high- and low-quality studies remained significant after adjustment for other study characteristics in a multivariate meta-regression analysis. We did not find any indication that CBT was more or less effective than other psychotherapies or pharmacotherapy. Combined treatment was significantly more effective than pharmacotherapy alone ( g = 0.49). Conclusions: There is no doubt that CBT is an effective treatment for adult depression, although the effects may have been overestimated until now. CBT is also the most studied psychotherapy for depression, and thus has the greatest weight of evidence. However, other treatments approach its overall efficacy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Cuijpers, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of psychotherapies for adult depression to pill placebo control groups: a meta-analysis
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Psychological Medicine. - : Cambridge University Press (CUP). - 0033-2917 .- 1469-8978. ; 44:4, s. 685-695
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The effects of antidepressants for treating depressive disorders have been overestimated because of selective publication of positive trials. Reanalyses that include unpublished trials have yielded reduced effect sizes. This in turn has led to claims that antidepressants have clinically insignificant advantages over placebo and that psychotherapy is therefore a better alternative. To test this, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing psychotherapy with pill placebo. Method Ten 10 studies comparing psychotherapies with pill placebo were identified. In total, 1240 patients were included in these studies. For each study, Hedges g was calculated. Characteristics of the studies were extracted for subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Results The effect of psychotherapy compared to pill placebo at post-test was g=0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.36, I (2)=0%, 95% CI 0-58]. This effect size corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 7.14 (95% CI 5.00-12.82). The psychotherapy conditions scored 2.66 points lower on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) than the placebo conditions, and 3.20 points lower on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Some indications for publication bias were found (two missing studies). We found no significant differences between subgroups of the studies and in meta-regression analyses we found no significant association between baseline severity and effect size. Conclusions Although there are differences between the role of placebo in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, psychotherapy has an effect size that is comparable to that of antidepressant medications. Whether these effects should be deemed clinically relevant remains open to debate.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kleiboer, A, et al.
(författare)
-
European COMPARative Effectiveness research on blended Depression treatment versus treatment-as-usual (E-COMPARED): study protocol for a randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Trials. - London : BioMed Central. - 1745-6215. ; 17:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Effective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care.Methods/design: E-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to "blended" service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country).Discussion: The E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment.Trial Registration: France: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891 . Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866 . Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962 . Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660 . Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684 . Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447 . Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616 . Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725 . Registered on 20 March 2015.
|
|
