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

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.

Assessment of suicidality in trials of psychological interventions for depression: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychological interventions that are efficacious as treatments for depression could indirectly affect suicide-related outcomes. We examined suicidal thoughts and behaviours as eligibility criteria, outcomes, and adverse events across trials of psychotherapy for depression. METHODS: We used a publicly available meta-analytic database developed through systematic searches (updated as of May 1, 2023) to identify randomised controlled trials in which a psychological intervention for depression was compared with an inactive or non-specific control condition in adults with depression and in which any suicide-related outcomes were reported. We also identified studies in which suicide risk was an exclusion criterion. We excluded inpatient studies and trials of unguided digital interventions or collaborative care that included a psychological component. Pairs of reviewers worked independently to select studies and extract data. In a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation, we assessed the effect of the psychological intervention on suicide outcomes in trials in which suicide was explicitly assessed as an outcome with clinical scales with established psychometric properties. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2). FINDINGS: Of the 469 randomised trials we identified in which a psychological intervention was compared with an inactive control in people with depression, 251 excluded people judged at risk of suicide. Any assessment of suicide was included in only 45 trials, 12 of which assessed suicidal ideation or risk as an outcome. These 12 trials included 3930 participants, 2795 (71%) of whom were female and 1135 (29%) of whom were male; data for age and ethnicity were not consistently reported. Psychological interventions for depression were associated with a small reduction in suicidal ideation and risk in 11 trials (one trial reported only follow-up data) after the intervention (standardised mean difference -0·31 [95% CI -0·60 to -0·03]) but not at follow-up (-0·49 [-1·31 to 0·32]). Suicide-related adverse events were reported in 25 trials, and suicide-related serious adverse events (eg, suicide attempts, deaths by suicide) were reported in 13 trials. Heterogeneity was substantial across all analyses, and prediction intervals crossed zero. INTERPRETATION: Trials of psychological interventions for depression rarely report assessments of suicide. Psychological interventions might reduce suicidal ideation in patients with depression, but more randomised controlled trials are required to clarify this effect. Monitoring and reporting of suicide-related adverse events should be improved in trials of psychological interventions for depression, and future trials should incorporate outcomes related to suicidal thoughts or behaviours. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Which psychotherapy is most effective and acceptable in the treatment of adults with a (sub)clinical borderline personality disorder? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of psychotherapy is most effective remains unanswered. In this study, two network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted investigating the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies on (1) BPD severity and (2) suicidal behaviour (combined rate). Study drop-out was included as a secondary outcome. Six databases were searched until 21 January 2022, including RCTs on the efficacy of any psychotherapy in adults (⩾18 years) with a diagnosis of (sub)clinical BPD. Data were extracted using a predefined table format. PROSPERO ID:CRD42020175411. In our study, a total of 43 studies (N = 3273) were included. We found significant differences between several active comparisons in the treatment of (sub)clinical BPD, however, these findings were based on very few trials and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Some therapies were more efficacious compared to GT or TAU. Furthermore, some treatments more than halved the risk of attempted suicide and committed suicide (combined rate), reporting RRs around 0.5 or lower, however, these RRs were not statistically significantly better compared to other therapies or to TAU. Study drop-out significantly differed between some treatments. In conclusion, no single treatment seems to be the best choice to treat people with BPD compared to other treatments. Nevertheless, psychotherapies for BPD are perceived as first-line treatments, and should therefore be investigated further on their long-term effectiveness, preferably in head-to-head trials. DBT was the best connected treatment, providing solid evidence of its effectiveness.

Psychotherapy for comorbid depression and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of depression in patients with somatic disorders is crucial, given its negative impact on quality of life (QoL), functioning, and even on the somatic disease prognosis. We aimed to examine the most updated evidence on the effects of psychotherapy in patients with depression and somatic disorders, including HIV, oncological, cardiometabolic, and neurological disorders. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of 75 randomized trials (8209 participants) of psychotherapy for adults with somatic disorders and a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression. Outcomes included depression, QoL, somatic health-related outcomes, and mortality. RESULTS: Psychotherapy significantly reduced the severity of depression at post-treatment across all categories of somatic disorders (Hedges'g = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.79), with sustained effects at 6-11 months (g = 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.53) and at 12 months follow-up or longer (g = 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.21). Psychotherapy also showed significant effects on QoL (g = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.35), maintained up to 11 months follow-up (g = 0.25; 95% CI 0.16-0.34). No significant effects were observed on the most frequently reported somatic health-related outcomes (glycemic control, pain), and neither on mortality. Heterogeneity in most analyses was very high, and only 29 (38%) trials were rated at low risk of bias (RoB). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotherapy may be an effective treatment option for patients with depression and somatic disorders, with long-term effects on depression severity and QoL. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity and RoB.

Efficacy and moderators of cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adults with depression: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data. AIMS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602). METHOD: Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.

Prophylactic Enoxaparin Against Catheter-Associated Thrombosis in Postoperative Cardiac Children: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of pharmacologic prophylaxis against catheter-associated thrombosis in children is unclear. We evaluated the compliance and outcomes associated with a prophylactic enoxaparin protocol in postoperative cardiac children. DESIGN: The protocol was implemented as a quality improvement initiative and then analyzed using interrupted time series method. Data collected from November 2014 to December 2018 were divided into preprotocol (period 1), protocol implementation (period 2), and protocol revision (period 3). SETTING: A 12-bed academic pediatric cardiac ICU. PATIENTS: Children less than or equal to 18 years old with congenital heart disease admitted postoperatively with central venous catheter in situ for greater than or equal to 1 day. INTERVENTIONS: Before 2016, prophylactic enoxaparin was administered according to physician preference. In January 2016, an enoxaparin protocol was implemented with a goal anti-Xa range of 0.25-0.49 international units/mL. Protocol was revised in February 2017 to increase the starting dose by 25% for infants less than 1 year old. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 780 hospitalizations from 636 children. Median percentage of catheter-days on prophylactic enoxaparin was 33% (interquartile range [IQR], 23-47%), 42% (IQR, 30-51%), and 38% (IQR, 35-52%) in periods 1-3, respectively. Percentage of catheter-days on enoxaparin showed immediate increase of 90% (95% CI, 17-210%) between periods 1 and 2 and sustained increase of 2% (95% CI, 0.3-4%) between periods 2 and 3. Median rates of thrombosis per 1,000 catheter-days were 5.8 (IQR, 0-9.3), 3.8 (IQR, 0-12), and 0 (IQR, 0-5.3) in periods 1-3, respectively. Rate of thrombosis showed immediate decrease of 67% (95% CI, 12-87%) between periods 1 and 2 and sustained decrease of 11% (95% CI, 2-18%) between periods 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The temporal association between increase in percentage of catheter-days on enoxaparin and decrease in rate of thrombosis suggests the effectiveness of prophylactic enoxaparin.

Meta-research studies should improve and evaluate their own data sharing practices.

Data sharing is gradually becoming a requirement across all fields of science, owing to its key benefits in verifying the reproducibility of findings and reusing existent data for new purposes. Although metaresearch studies are complex, time-consuming, and hinge on the availability of data produced and curated by others, there has been little focus on how they make their own data available. This is in stark contrast to the heightened attention data sharing has received in clinical research. Yet, as secondary data users par excellence, metaresearchers are ethically bound to both improving and evaluating data sharing practices and correctly sharing their own data. We contrast particularities of data sharing in metaresearch and clinical research, such as benefits, barriers, and inadequate and potentially pervasive sharing practices. We conclude with an array of concrete and tailored recommendations for improvement.

Insurance coverage and respiratory morbidities in bronchopulmonary dysplasia.

INTRODUCTION: Preterm infants and young children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) are at increased risk for acute care utilization and chronic respiratory symptoms during early life. Identifying risk factors for respiratory morbidities in the outpatient setting could decrease the burden of care. We hypothesized that public insurance coverage was associated with higher acute care usage and respiratory symptoms in preterm infants and children with BPD after initial neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) discharge. METHODS: Subjects were recruited from BPD clinics at 10 tertiary care centers in the United States between 2018 and 2021. Demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained through chart review. Surveys for clinical outcomes were administered to caregivers. RESULTS: Of the 470 subjects included in this study, 249 (53.0%) received employer-based insurance coverage and 221 (47.0%) received Medicaid as sole coverage at least once between 0 and 3 years of age. The Medicaid group was twice as likely to have sick visits (adjusted odd ratio [OR]: 2.06; p = 0.009) and emergency department visits (aOR: 2.09; p = 0.028), and three times more likely to be admitted for respiratory reasons (aOR: 3.04; p = 0.001) than those in the employer-based group. Additionally, those in the Medicaid group were more likely to have nighttime respiratory symptoms (aOR: 2.62; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Children with BPD who received Medicaid coverage were more likely to utilize acute care and have nighttime respiratory symptoms during the first 3 years of life. More comprehensive studies are needed to determine whether the use of Medicaid represents a barrier to accessing care, lower socioeconomic status, and/or a proxy for detrimental environmental exposures.

Correction: A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133.].

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.