Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.

<h4>Background</h4>Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and ind...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jürgen Barth, Thomas Munder, Heike Gerger, Eveline Nüesch, Sven Trelle, Hansjörg Znoj, Peter Jüni, Pim Cuijpers
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013-01-01
Series:PLoS Medicine
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849429237128232960
author Jürgen Barth
Thomas Munder
Heike Gerger
Eveline Nüesch
Sven Trelle
Hansjörg Znoj
Peter Jüni
Pim Cuijpers
author_facet Jürgen Barth
Thomas Munder
Heike Gerger
Eveline Nüesch
Sven Trelle
Hansjörg Znoj
Peter Jüni
Pim Cuijpers
author_sort Jürgen Barth
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d = -0.62 to d = -0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d = 0.01 to d = -0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d = -0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (Δd = 0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p = 0.063) and large size (Δd = 0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p = 0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (Δd = 0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p = 0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Overall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.
format Article
id doaj-art-c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa
institution Kabale University
issn 1549-1277
1549-1676
language English
publishDate 2013-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS Medicine
spelling doaj-art-c8b0f648a97547328bf9d5f037efa4aa2025-08-20T03:28:25ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Medicine1549-12771549-16762013-01-01105e100145410.1371/journal.pmed.1001454Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.Jürgen BarthThomas MunderHeike GergerEveline NüeschSven TrelleHansjörg ZnojPeter JüniPim Cuijpers<h4>Background</h4>Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d = -0.62 to d = -0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d = 0.01 to d = -0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d = -0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (Δd = 0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p = 0.063) and large size (Δd = 0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p = 0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (Δd = 0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p = 0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Overall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454
spellingShingle Jürgen Barth
Thomas Munder
Heike Gerger
Eveline Nüesch
Sven Trelle
Hansjörg Znoj
Peter Jüni
Pim Cuijpers
Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
PLoS Medicine
title Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
title_full Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
title_short Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.
title_sort comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression a network meta analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454
work_keys_str_mv AT jurgenbarth comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT thomasmunder comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT heikegerger comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT evelinenuesch comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT sventrelle comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT hansjorgznoj comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT peterjuni comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis
AT pimcuijpers comparativeefficacyofsevenpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforpatientswithdepressionanetworkmetaanalysis