Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta-analyses: An empirical study in depression.

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.

The outcomes of mental health care for depression over time: A meta-regression analysis of response rates in usual care.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades dozens of randomized trials have shown that psychological treatments are more effective than care-as-usual (CAU). It could be expected that these treatments are implemented in routine care and that the response rates in usual care improve over time. The aim of the current meta-analysis is to examine if response and remission rates in usual care have improved over time. METHODS: We used an existing meta-analytic database of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of psychological treatments of depression and selected CAU control groups from these trials. We only included CAU conditions in primary care, specialized mental health care, perinatal care and general medical care. The response rate (50 % symptom reduction) was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 125 CAU control groups (8542 participants). The response rate for all CAU control groups was 0.22 (95 % CI: 0.19; 0.24) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 83; 95 % CI: 80; 85), with somewhat higher rates in primary care (0.27; 95 % CI: 0.23; 0.31). We found hardly any indications that the outcomes have improved over the years. The meta-regression analysis with publication year as predictor in the full dataset resulted in a coefficient of 0.1 (SE = 0.01; p = 0.0.35). A series of sensitivity analyses supported the main findings. Remission rates and pre-post effect sizes also did not significantly improve over time. CONCLUSIONS: Response and remission rates in usual care are low, with the large majority of patients not responding or remitting, and the outcomes have probably not improved over time.

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.

Amount and frequency of psychotherapy as predictors of treatment outcome for adult depression: A meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the amount and frequency of psychotherapy is associated with treatment effects for adult depression. We investigated whether a number of indicators of the amount and frequency of psychotherapy were related to the treatment effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing individual, face-to-face psychotherapy to a control group (e.g., care-as-usual [CAU] or waitlist condition [WL]). METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched, and meta-regression analyses conducted to assess the relationship between the effect size (Hedges' g) of the treatment and number of sessions, duration of psychotherapy, total contact time with the therapist, and number of sessions per week. RESULTS: We included 176 studies (210 comparisons) with 15,158 participants. We did not find a relationship between the effect size, and number of sessions, or total contact time. There was a small negative association between duration of treatment and the effect size, an additional week of treatment was related to a 0.014 decrease in the effect size. In addition, there was a strong association between number of sessions per week and the effect size, an increase from one to two sessions per week was related to an effect size higher by 0.596. Both associations were no longer significant when controlling for characteristics of studies. LIMITATIONS: The current findings are correlational, future research should thus address this question in an RCT. CONCLUSIONS: We should deliver brief therapies, and thus shorten waiting lists. More sessions, if necessary, should be delivered with higher frequency and over a shorter period of time.

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.

The effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based psychological interventions exist for individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but many individuals with OCD are unable to access them because of barriers, such as geographical isolation, treatment cost, and stigma etc. Unguided self-help psychological intervention has emerged as a potential solution to this problem. However, there is limited research on its overall effectiveness. This study aimed to address this gap. METHODS: Comprehensive searches from inception to 1st Jan 2023 were conducted in both international (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, International clinical trials registry platform of WHO) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WeiPu, WanFang, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) databases. The registered protocol is accessible at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FKB5W. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unguided self-help psychological interventions to control groups for individuals with OCD. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated post-intervention. Heterogeneity was deemed to be low, moderate, and high if the I2 value was quantified 25%, 50%, and 75% respectively. Relative Risks (RRs) was calculated for dropout rates post-intervention. Random-effects models were used for all analyses. RESULTS: 12 RCTs comparing unguided self-help psychological interventions to control groups were identified, with a total of 20 comparisons and 769 OCD patients. Overall, unguided self-help psychological interventions demonstrated a significant moderate effect on reducing OCD symptom severity (g = -0.42; 95% CI [-0.69; -0.14]) compared to control groups, with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 59%; 95% CI [22.73; 78.38]). This finding remained significant in sensitivity analyses for the self-rated Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS; k = 7, g = -0.46; 95% CI [-0.71; -0.2]) and after removing an outlier (g = -0.37; 95% CI [-0.55; -0.19]), but not for the clinician-rated Y-BOCS (k = 4, g = -0.78; 95% CI [-2.75; 1.19]) and Obsessive Compulsive Inventory-Revised (k = 6, g = -0.26; 95% CI [-0.53; 0]). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant difference in effect size between studies conducting intention-to-treat and completers-only analyses (p = .01). The completers-only analyses demonstrated a moderate significant effect (g = -0.65; 95% CI [-1.08; -0.21]), whereas the effect of the intention-to-treat analyses was not significant (g = -0.18; 95% CI [-0.36; 0]). Participants in the unguided self-help groups exhibited a significantly higher dropout rate (RR = 2.08; 95% CI [1.53; 2.81]) compared to control groups. Furthermore, participants recruited from the community had a higher likelihood of dropping out compared to those recruited from clinical settings (p < .001). Additionally, participants who received cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention were more likely to drop out than those who received other types of intervention (p < .001). Most trials (92%) were rated at a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Unguided self-help psychological interventions demonstrate potential effectiveness in alleviating OCD symptom severity post-intervention. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the results due to high risk of bias across trials and the relatively small sample size. And the considerable dropout rate might hinder treatment effects. Future studies with strict methodology should investigate the long-term effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for OCD, explore the reasons for high dropout rates, and improve intervention adherence.

Non-directive supportive therapy for depression: A meta-analytic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-directive supportive therapy (NDST) is an important treatment of adult depression, but no recent meta-analysis has integrated the randomized trials examining its effects. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis comparing NDST to control conditions and to other therapies, by using an existing database of randomized trials of psychological treatments of depression in adults. This database was built through searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: 48 randomized controlled trials (5075 participants), with 20 comparisons between NDST and a control group and 49 comparisons between NDST and another psychotherapy were included. Random effects meta-analyses found an effect size of NDST compared with control conditions of g = 0.53 (95 % CI, 0.34; 0.72) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 51; 95 % CI: 18; 71; PI = -0.02 to 1.09). NDST was less effective than other therapies (g = -0.21; 95 % CI: -0.31; -0.11). The difference with other therapies was significantly larger in studies in which NDST was used as a control group (p = .003). There was no significant difference between NDST and other therapies in which NDST was not used as a control group (k = 14; g = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.17; 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: NDST probably is an effective treatment of depression. The effects may be somewhat smaller than those of other therapies, but that may also be an artefact, because NDST is often used as a control group and may be designed as an "intent-to-fail" intervention in some studies.

Psychotherapies for Generalized Anxiety Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders in adults. Psychotherapies are among the most recommended treatments for GAD, but which should be considered as first-line treatment needs to be clarified. Objective: To use a network meta-analysis to examine the short- and long-term associations of different psychotherapies with outcomes of effectiveness and acceptability in adults with GAD. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception to January 1, 2023, to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies for adults with GAD. Study Selection: RCTs comparing any type of psychotherapy against another or with a control condition for the treatment of adults (≥18 years, both sexes) with a primary diagnosis of GAD were eligible for inclusion. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed Cochrane standards for extracting data and assessing data quality and used the PRISMA guideline for reporting. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis was used to rate the certainty of evidence for meta-analytical results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Eight psychotherapies were compared against one another and with 2 control conditions. Primary outcomes were severity of GAD symptoms and acceptability of the psychotherapies. Random-effects model pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted. For effectiveness, standardized mean differences (SMDs) were pooled, and for acceptability, relative risks with 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Data from 65 RCTs were included. Effect size estimates on data from 5048 participants (mean [SD], 70.9% [11.9%] women; mean [SD] age, 42.2 [12.5] years) suggested that third-wave cognitive behavior therapies (CBTs) (SMD, -0.76 [95% CI, -1.15 to -0.36]; certainty, moderate), CBT (SMD, -0.74 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.38]; certainty, moderate), and relaxation therapy (SMD, -0.59 [95% CI, -1.07 to -0.11]; certainty, low) were associated with reduced GAD symptoms vs treatment as usual. Relative risks for all-cause discontinuation (indication of acceptability) signaled no differences compared with treatment as usual for all psychotherapies (eg, relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.64-1.67] for CBT vs treatment as usual). When excluding studies at high risk of bias, relaxation therapy lost its superiority over treatment as usual (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -1.18 to 0.23). When considering anxiety severity at 3 to 12 months after completion of the intervention, only CBT remained significantly associated with greater effectiveness than treatment as usual (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.21). Conclusions and Relevance: Given the evidence in this systematic review and network meta-analysis for its associations with both acute and long-term effectiveness, CBT may represent the first-line therapy of GAD. Third-wave CBTs and relaxation therapy were associated with short-term effectiveness and may also be offered.

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapies for depression in China in comparison with the rest of the world: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There is consistent evidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) are effective interventions for adult depression. While some evidence has compared these effects in different countries, no prior systematic review and meta-analysis has compared the efficacy of CBTs between Chinese and people from the rest of the world. The current meta-analysis addressed this gap by a systematic review of eligible studies from Chinese and worldwide databases. METHOD: Hedges' g was calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and multilevel meta-analytic models were conducted to examine the relationship among effect sizes and the characteristics in Chinese studies. Metaregression analyses were conducted to explore the difference of the efficacy of CBTs between Chinese studies and non-Chinese studies after controlling for the moderators. RESULTS: A total of 34 (n = 3,710) studies in China and 307 (n = 30,333) studies from the rest of the world were included. The effect size of CBTs on depression for Chinese participants was 1.19 (95% CI [0.86, 1.52]), which was higher (Q = 4.63, p = .03) than the effect size of the rest of the world (0.82, 95% CI [0.74, 0.90]). After controlling for moderators, the effect size of Chinese studies was still higher than non-Chinese studies (ß = 0.351, p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: CBTs are effective interventions for adult depression and deserve more attention in China for depression management. Moderators related to study design, clinical features, and cultural factors need to be considered in the interpretation of the results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Technology-supported treatments for adjustment disorder: A systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of technology in psychological treatments can bring evidence-based interventions closer to more people using fewer resources. The aim of this systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis was to summarize all the available information about technology-supported psychological treatments for Adjustment Disorder (AjD) patients of all ages. METHOD: Eligibility criteria included studies that tested a technology-supported treatment in patients with AjD and reported data on a mental health outcome. Case studies and case series were excluded. Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0. tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and the NHLBI tool for pre-post studies. RESULTS: Nine articles (8 RCTs and 1 pre-post study) were included, eight that tested computerised interventions and two that used virtual reality. The meta-analysis showed the superior efficacy of the intervention groups compared to control conditions in reducing mental health symptomatology and a significant improvement between pre- and post-treatment. LIMITATIONS: The small number of studies included and the high heterogeneity among them were two of the main limitations. CONCLUSIONS: These results are similar to those observed in previous systematic reviews on technology-supported treatments for other mental disorders and suggest that these interventions could be effective for patients with AjD. However, further research is needed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of these interventions for the treatment of AjD in different age populations such as children, adolescents or older adults, as well as effective means for improving treatment retention.

Baseline depression severity as moderator on depression outcomes in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatments for adult depression include psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, yet little is known about how baseline depression severity moderates treatment outcome. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression and to examine the association between baseline depression severity and treatment outcome, converting multiple baseline depression measures into the scores of the Beck Depression Inventory, second edition (BDI-II). METHODS: We conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases up to September 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which psychotherapy was compared with pharmacotherapy in the treatment of adult depression. Various meta-regressions using the baseline depression severity as predictor of the relative effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were performed. RESULTS: We identified 65 RCTs including 7250 participants for the meta-analyses and 56 RCTs including 5548 participants for the meta-regression. We found no significant difference between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (g = -0.08, 95 % CI: -0.2 to 0.04, p = 0.193) and baseline depression severity was not significantly associated with the relative effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (B = 0.0032, SE = 0.0096, p = 0.74). Results were similar in several sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included the low quality of the included studies, and the omission of long-term effects and within-study variability. CONCLUSIONS: We found no indication for a moderation effect of baseline depression severity on the relative effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Thus, other factors such as availability and patients' preference must be considered when deciding for treatment options.

Digital interventions for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: In low-resource settings, e-mental health may substantially increase access to evidence-based interventions for common mental disorders. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify randomised trials examining the effects of digital interventions with or without therapeutic guidance compared to control conditions in individuals with anxiety and/or depression symptoms in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: The main outcome was the reduction in symptoms at the post-test. Secondary outcomes included improvements in quality of life and longer-term effects (≥20 weeks post-randomisation). The effect size Hedges' g was calculated using the random effects model. Results: A total of 21 studies (23 comparisons) with 5.296 participants were included. Digital interventions were more effective than controls in reducing symptoms of common mental disorders at the post-test (g = -0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.26 to -0.52, p < 0.001; NNT = 2.91). These significant effects were confirmed when examining depressive (g = -0.77, 95% CI -1.11; -0.44) and anxiety symptoms separately (g = -1.02, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.52) and across all other sensitivity analyses. Digital interventions also resulted in a small but significant effect in improving quality of life (g = 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45) at the post-test. Over the longer term, the effects were smaller but remained significant for all examined outcomes. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in all analyses. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses did not result in significant outcomes in any of the examined variables (e.g., guided vs. unguided interventions). Conclusions: Digital interventions, with or without guidance, may effectively bridge the gap between treatment supply and demand in LMICs. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to draw firm conclusions regarding the magnitude of the effects of digital interventions.

Five decades of research on psychological treatments of depression: A historical and meta-analytic overview.

Since the 1970s, hundreds of randomized trials have examined the effects of psychotherapies for depression, and this number is increasing every year. In this study, we report outcomes from a living systematic review of these studies. We use Poisson regression analyses to examine if the proportions of studies have changed over time across the characteristics of the participants, therapies, and studies. We also present a meta-analysis of the effects across the major types, formats, targets, and age groups. We included 562 randomized controlled trials (669 comparisons; 66,361 patients). Most trials are conducted in adults and the relative proportion of trials in children and adolescents, as well as in older patients is significantly decreasing. The effects in children and adolescents are also significantly smaller than in adults (p = .007). Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is by far the best examined type of therapy (52%), but not necessarily more effective than other therapies. Over time, the proportion of studies examining several other types of therapy is significantly decreased compared to CBT. The quality of trials has increased over time, but still, a majority do not meet basic quality criteria, not even in recent years. The effects found in studies with low risk of bias are significantly smaller than in other studies (b = -0.21; SE = 0.05; p < .001). Most trials are conducted in the United States, but the proportion of studies in other parts of the world is rapidly increasing. The evidence that psychotherapies are effective is strong and growing every year. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychotherapy for adult depression in low- and middle-income countries: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses on psychotherapy for adult depression have found a larger treatment effect in non-Western trials compared to Western trials (i.e. North America, Europe, and Australia). However, factors contributing to this difference remain unclear. This study investigated different study characteristics between Western and non-Western trials and examined their association with effect size estimates. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (01-09-2022). We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared psychotherapy with a control condition. The validity of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1). Effect sizes were pooled using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also conducted. We identified 405 eligible trials, among which 105 trials (117 comparisons, 16 304 participants) were from non-Western countries. We confirmed that non-Western trials had a larger treatment effect (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.31) than Western trials (g = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52-0.62). Trials from non-Western countries also had more usual care controls, higher risk of bias, larger sample sizes, lower mean ages, younger adults, more group-based interventions, and other recruitment methods (e.g. systematic screening; p < 0.05). The larger effect sizes found in non-Western trials were related to the presence of wait-list controls, high risk of bias, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and clinician-diagnosed depression (p < 0.05). The larger treatment effects observed in non-Western trials may result from the high heterogeneous study design and relatively low validity. Further research on long-term effects, adolescent groups, and individual-level data are still needed.

Does the use of pharmacotherapy interact with the effects of psychotherapy? A meta-analytic review.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear if there is an interaction between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. First, there may be no interaction at all, meaning that the effects of both are independent of each other. Second, antidepressants may reduce the effects of psychotherapy, and third, antidepressants may increase the effects of psychotherapy. We examined which of the three is correct. METHODS: We conducted random effects meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for adult depression with control conditions. The proportion of users of antidepressants was used as a predictor of the effect size in a series of meta-regression analyses, while adjusting for relevant moderators, such as type of control group and baseline severity. RESULTS: We included 300 randomized controlled trials (353 comparisons between treatment and control; 32,852 participants). The main effect size of psychotherapy was g = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64; 0.79) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 82; 95% CI: 80; 84). We found no significant association between the proportion of antidepressants users and effect size (p = .07). We did find a significant association with some other predictors, including the type of control group and risk of bias. The use of antidepressants was associated with higher response rates within the control conditions, but not with the relative effects of the treatments compared to the control groups. DISCUSSION: We found support for the independent effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, which is good news from a clinical perspective. Apparently, patients can start with psychotherapy and do not have to be afraid that this will reduce the effects of the therapy.

Psychological treatment of adult depression in primary care compared with outpatient mental health care: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is not yet known whether psychological treatments of depression in primary care have comparable effects to treatments in specialized mental health care. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing randomized controlled trials in primary and specialized care. METHODS: We selected studies from an existing database of randomized trials of psychological treatments of depression in adults, which was built through searches in PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to examine the effects of therapies and mixed effects subgroup analyses were used to compare the effects in primary and specialized care. RESULTS: We included 52 trials (7984 patients) in primary care and compared them with 50 trials (3685 patients) in specialized care. The main effect of therapies in primary care was g = 0.43 (95 % CI: 0.32; 0.53; PI: -0.18; 1.03). The overall effects were significantly smaller than those in specialized care (p = 0.006), but this was no longer significant after adjustment for differences between the two settings. The proportion of patients responding to treatment was comparable in primary (0.38; 95 % CI: 0.33; 0.43) and specialized care (0.34; 95 % CI: 0.28; 0.41; p = 0.41), but higher in control conditions in primary care (0.25; 95 % CI: 0.22; 0.28) compared to specialized care (0.16; 95 % CI: 0.12; 0.20; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Psychological treatments are effective in primary care, but somewhat less than in specialized care. Response rates in control conditions in primary care are higher than in specialized care, which may point at a transient nature of depression in primary care.

Psychological treatment of perinatal depression: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression during pregnancy and after the birth of a child is highly prevalent and an important public health problem. Psychological interventions are the first-line treatment and, although a considerable number of randomized trials have been conducted, no recent comprehensive meta-analysis has evaluated treatment effects. METHODS: We used an existing database of randomized controlled trials of psychotherapies for adult depression and included studies aimed at perinatal depression. Random effects models were used in all analyses. We examined the effects of the interventions in the short and long term, and also examined secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-three studies with 49 comparisons and 6270 participants between an intervention and control group were included. The overall effect size was g = 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45~0.89; numbers needed-to-be-treated = 4.39] with high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI 75~85). This effect size remained largely unchanged and significant in a series of sensitivity analyses, although some publication bias was found. The effects remained significant at 6-12 months follow-up. Significant effects were also found for social support, anxiety, functional limitations, parental stress and marital stress, although the number of studies for each outcome was low. All results should be considered with caution because of the high levels of heterogeneity in most analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions are probably effective in the treatment of perinatal depression, with effects that last at least up to 6-12 months and probably also have effects on social support, anxiety, functional impairment, parental stress, and marital stress.

Psychological treatment of depression: A systematic overview of a 'Meta-Analytic Research Domain'.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 16 years, we have developed a 'Meta-analytic Research Domain' (MARD) of all randomized trials of psychological treatments of depression. A MARD is a living systematic review of a research field, that cannot be otherwise covered by one (network) meta-analysis and includes multiple PICOs. In this paper we give an overview of the findings of this MARD. METHODS: A narrative review of the results of the 118 meta-analyses on psychotherapies for depression that were published within our MARD. RESULTS: Most research has been conducted on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), but several other psychotherapies are also effective, with few differences between therapies. They can be effectively delivered in individual, group, telephone and guided self-help format and are effective in many different target groups and across different age groups, although the effects are significantly smaller in children and adolescents. Psychotherapies have comparable effects as pharmacotherapy at the short term but are probably more effective at the longer term. Combined treatment is more effective than either psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy alone at the short, but also at the longer term. LIMITATIONS: We did not summarize all published meta-analyses (protocols, methodological studies) and have not compared our results to those found in other meta-analyses on comparable subjects. CONCLUSION: Psychotherapies can contribute considerably to a reduction of the disease burden of depression. MARDs are an important next step in the aggregation of knowledge from randomized controlled trials in psychological treatments of depression as well as in other healthcare sectors.

Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hundreds of randomised controlled trials and dozens of meta-analyses have examined psychotherapies for depression-yet not all points in the same direction. Are these discrepancies a result of specific meta-analytical decisions or do most analytical strategies reaching the same conclusion? OBJECTIVE: We aim to solve these discrepancies by conducting a multiverse meta-analysis containing all possible meta-analyses, using all statistical methods. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched four bibliographical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), including studies published until 1 January 2022. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapies with control conditions without restricting the type of psychotherapy, target group, intervention format, control condition and diagnosis. We defined all possible meta-analyses emerging from combinations of these inclusion criteria and estimated the resulting pooled effect sizes with fixed-effect, random-effects, 3-level, robust variance estimation, p-uniform and PET-PEESE (precision-effect test and precision-effect estimate with SE) meta-analysis models. This study was preregistered (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050197). FINDINGS: A total of 21 563 records were screened, and 3584 full texts were retrieved; 415 studies met our inclusion criteria containing 1206 effect sizes and 71 454 participants. Based on all possible combinations between inclusion criteria and meta-analytical methods, we calculated 4281 meta-analyses. The average summary effect size for these meta-analyses was Hedges' g mean=0.56, a medium effect size, and ranged from g=-0.66 to 2.51. In total, 90% of these meta-analyses reached a clinically relevant magnitude. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The multiverse meta-analysis revealed the overall robustness of the effectiveness of psychotherapies for depression. Notably, meta-analyses that included studies with a high risk of bias, compared the intervention with wait-list control groups, and not correcting for publication bias produced larger effect sizes.

Universal, selective and indicated interventions for supporting mental health at the workplace: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.

The current umbrella review aimed to assess and summarise evidence on universal, selective and indicated interventions for mental health at the workplace. This umbrella review forms one of the evidence reviews which were commissioned by the WHO to develop global guidelines on mental health at work. We conducted systematic searches in five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Global Medicus Index) and included meta-analyses of randomised trials examining psychosocial, physical activity and lifestyle interventions delivered to all general workers (universal interventions), at-risk workers (selective interventions) and workers already experiencing symptoms of mental disorders (indicated interventions). We included outcomes from seven domains: symptoms of mental health conditions, positive mental health, quality of life, work-related outcomes, substance use, suicide-related outcomes and potential adverse effects. We identified 16 meta-analyses producing 66 pooled effect sizes of the examined interventions, mostly on symptoms of mental health conditions (n=43 pooled effect sizes) (eg, burnout, insomnia, stress) and positive mental health (n=15) (eg, well-being). Most of the evidence on universal, selective and indicated interventions was focused on psychosocial interventions, showing small to moderate effects across the various outcomes. Certainty levels according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were low to very low in almost all of the examined outcomes. The results of existing meta-analyses are promising for the use of preventative and early treatment interventions in the workplace. However, the quality and certainty of the evidence were very modest, and further research on the effectiveness of these interventions is warranted.