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?...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Mental Health |
| Online Access: | https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/26/1/e300626.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823858058726473728 |
|---|---|
| author | Eirini Karyotaki Pim Cuijpers Constantin Yves Plessen Clara Miguel Marketa Ciharova |
| author_facet | Eirini Karyotaki Pim Cuijpers Constantin Yves Plessen Clara Miguel Marketa Ciharova |
| author_sort | Eirini Karyotaki |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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’ gmean=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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-863aadd1c2b24497bb0f230576d04432 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2755-9734 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-02-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Mental Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-863aadd1c2b24497bb0f230576d044322025-02-11T15:00:11ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Mental Health2755-97342023-02-0126110.1136/bmjment-2022-300626Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysisEirini Karyotaki0Pim Cuijpers1Constantin Yves Plessen2Clara Miguel3Marketa Ciharova4Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands2EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University and VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands1 Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany1 Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands2 Department of Clinical, Neuro-, and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsBackground 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’ gmean=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.https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/26/1/e300626.full |
| spellingShingle | Eirini Karyotaki Pim Cuijpers Constantin Yves Plessen Clara Miguel Marketa Ciharova Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis BMJ Mental Health |
| title | Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis |
| title_full | Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis |
| title_short | Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis |
| title_sort | exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression a multiverse meta analysis |
| url | https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/26/1/e300626.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT eirinikaryotaki exploringtheefficacyofpsychotherapiesfordepressionamultiversemetaanalysis AT pimcuijpers exploringtheefficacyofpsychotherapiesfordepressionamultiversemetaanalysis AT constantinyvesplessen exploringtheefficacyofpsychotherapiesfordepressionamultiversemetaanalysis AT claramiguel exploringtheefficacyofpsychotherapiesfordepressionamultiversemetaanalysis AT marketaciharova exploringtheefficacyofpsychotherapiesfordepressionamultiversemetaanalysis |