Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several interventions are available for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults, but few studies have compared their relative efficacy in a single analysis. We aimed to simultaneously compare all available treatments using both direct and indirect data.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the two controlled trials registers maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration Common Mental Disorders group for trials published up to Feb 16, 2016. We selected randomised controlled trials in which an active psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention had been used in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder. We allowed all comorbidities except for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on treatment-resistant patient populations defined within the same study. We extracted data from published reports. The primary outcome was symptom severity as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. We report mean differences with 95% credible intervals compared with placebo. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002441.

FINDINGS

We identified 1480 articles in our search and included 53 articles (54 trials; 6652 participants) in the network meta-analysis. Behavioural therapy (mean difference -14·48 [95% credible interval -18·61 to -10·23]; 11 trials and 287 patients), cognitive therapy (-13·36 [-18·40 to -8·21]; six trials and 172 patients), behavioural therapy and clomipramine (-12·97 [-19·18 to -6·74]; one trial and 31 patients), cognitive behavioural therapy and fluvoxamine (-7·50 [-13·89 to -1·17]; one trial and six patients), cognitive behavioural therapy (-5·37 [-9·10 to -1·63]; nine trials and 231 patients), clomipramine (-4·72 [-6·85 to -2·60]; 13 trials and 831 patients), and all SSRIs (class effect -3·49 [95% credible interval -5·12 to -1·81]; 37 trials and 3158 patients) had greater effects than did drug placebo. Clomipramine was not better than were SSRIs (-1·23 [-3·41 to 0·94]). Psychotherapeutic interventions had a greater effect than did medications, but a serious limitation was that most psychotherapeutic trials included patients who were taking stable doses of antidepressants (12 [80%] of the 15 psychotherapy trials explicitly allowed antidepressants).

INTERPRETATION

A range of interventions is effective in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but considerable uncertainty and limitations exist regarding their relative efficacy. Taking all the evidence into account, the combination of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions is likely to be more effective than are psychotherapeutic interventions alone, at least in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Routine outcome monitoring of common mental health disorders (CMHDs), using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), has been promoted across primary care, psychological therapy and multidisciplinary mental health care settings, but is likely to be costly, given the high prevalence of CMHDs. There has been no systematic review of the use of PROMs in routine outcome monitoring of CMHDs across these three settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of routine measurement and feedback of the results of PROMs during the management of CMHDs in 1) improving the outcome of CMHDs; and 2) in changing the management of CMHDs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis group specialised controlled trials register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References), the Oxford University PROMS Bibliography (2002-5), Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and International trial registries, initially to 30 May 2014, and updated to 18 May 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected cluster and individually randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with CMHDs aged 18 years and over, in which the results of PROMs were fed back to treating clinicians, or both clinicians and patients. We excluded RCTs in child and adolescent treatment settings, and those in which more than 10% of participants had diagnoses of eating disorders, psychoses, substance use disorders, learning disorders or dementia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two authors independently identified eligible trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We conducted meta-analysis across studies, pooling outcome measures which were sufficiently similar to each other to justify pooling.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 8787 participants: nine in multidisciplinary mental health care, six in psychological therapy settings, and two in primary care. Pooling of outcome data to provide a summary estimate of effect across studies was possible only for those studies using the compound Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) or Outcome Rating System (ORS) PROMs, which were all conducted in multidisciplinary mental health care or psychological therapy settings, because both primary care studies identified used single symptom outcome measures, which were not directly comparable to the OQ-45 or ORS.Meta-analysis of 12 studies including 3696 participants using these PROMs found no evidence of a difference in outcome in terms of symptoms, between feedback and no-feedback groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to 0.01; P value = 0.10). The evidence for this comparison was graded as low quality however, as all included studies were considered at high risk of bias, in most cases due to inadequate blinding of assessors and significant attrition at follow-up.Quality of life was reported in only two studies, social functioning in one, and costs in none. Information on adverse events (thoughts of self-harm or suicide) was collected in one study, but differences between arms were not reported.It was not possible to pool data on changes in drug treatment or referrals as only two studies reported these. Meta-analysis of seven studies including 2608 participants found no evidence of a difference in management of CMHDs between feedback and no-feedback groups, in terms of the number of treatment sessions received (mean difference (MD) -0.02 sessions, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.39; P value = 0.93). However, the evidence for this comparison was also graded as low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to support the use of routine outcome monitoring using PROMs in the treatment of CMHDs, in terms of improving patient outcomes or in improving management. The findings are subject to considerable uncertainty however, due to the high risk of bias in the large majority of trials meeting the inclusion criteria, which means further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. More research of better quality is therefore required, particularly in primary care where most CMHDs are treated.Future research should address issues of blinding of assessors and attrition, and measure a range of relevant symptom outcomes, as well as possible harmful effects of monitoring, health-related quality of life, social functioning, and costs. Studies should include people treated with drugs as well as psychological therapies, and should follow them up for longer than six months.

ω-3 Fatty acids for major depressive disorder in adults: an abridged Cochrane review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs; also known as ω-3 fatty acids) compared with comparator for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries searched to May 2015. CINAHL searched to September 2013.

TRIAL SELECTION

INCLUSION CRITERIA

a randomised controlled trial (RCT); that provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and was conducted in adults with MDD.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology and adverse events.

RESULTS

20 trials encompassing 26 relevant studies were found. For n-3PUFAs versus placebo, n-3PUFA supplementation resulted in a small-to-modest benefit for depressive symptomology: SMD=-0.32 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.12; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low-quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful, is very imprecise and, based on funnel plot inspection, sensitivity analyses and comparison with large well-conducted trials, is likely to be biased. Considerable evidence of heterogeneity between studies was also found, and was not explained by subgroup or sensitivity analyses. Numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (OR=1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence). For n-3PUFAs versus antidepressants, no differences were found between treatments in depressive symptomology (MD=-0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48); 1 study, 40 participants, very low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

At present, we do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Further research in the form of adequately powered RCTs is needed.

Omega-3 fatty acids for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One emerging potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest differential effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, anti-depressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. 

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries over all years to May 2015. We searched the database CINAHL over all years of records to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in the review if they: were a randomised controlled trial; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and failure to complete studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 26 relevant studies: 25 studies involving a total of 1438 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment.For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation results in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to -0.52; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful (an SMD of 0.32 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.2 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6)). The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between the studies. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence), the confidence intervals include a significant increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs as well as a small possible decrease. Rates of remission and response, quality of life, and rates of failure to complete studies were also similar between groups, but confidence intervals are again wide.The evidence on which these results are based is very limited. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but we rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low. The number of studies and number of participants contributing to all analyses were low, and the majority of studies were small and judged to be at high risk of bias on several measures. Our analyses were also likely to be highly influenced by three large trials. Although we judge these trials to be at low risk of bias, they contribute 26.9% to 82% of data. Our effect size estimates are also imprecise. Funnel plot asymmetry and sensitivity analyses (using fixed-effect models, and only studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias, performance bias or attrition bias) also suggest a likely bias towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. There was substantial heterogeneity in analyses of our primary outcome of depressive symptomology. This heterogeneity was not explained by the presence or absence of comorbidities or by the presence or absence of adjunctive therapy.Only one study was available for the antidepressant comparison, involving 40 participants. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48)), rates of response to treatment or failure to complete. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.

ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed

Objective

To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies).

Study Design and Setting

We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting.

Results

ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews (“reviews of reviews”), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions.

Conclusions

ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.

Comparison between the standard and a new alternative format of the Summary-of-Findings tables in Cochrane review users: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews represent one of the most important tools for knowledge translation but users often struggle with understanding and interpreting their results. GRADE Summary-of-Findings tables have been developed to display results of systematic reviews in a concise and transparent manner. The current format of the Summary-of-Findings tables for presenting risks and quality of evidence improves understanding and assists users with finding key information from the systematic review. However, it has been suggested that additional methods to present risks and display results in the Summary-of-Findings tables are needed.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a non-inferiority parallel-armed randomized controlled trial to determine whether an alternative format to present risks and display Summary-of-Findings tables is not inferior compared to the current standard format. We will measure participant understanding, accessibility of the information, satisfaction, and preference for both formats. We will invite systematic review users to participate (that is clinicians, guideline developers, and researchers). The data collection process will be undertaken using the online 'Survey Monkey' system. For the primary outcome understanding, non-inferiority of the alternative format (Table A) to the current standard format (Table C) of Summary-of-Findings tables will be claimed if the upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (for the difference of proportion of participants answering correctly a given question) excluded a difference in favor of the current format of more than 10%.

DISCUSSION

This study represents an effort to provide systematic reviewers with additional options to display review results using Summary-of-Findings tables. In this way, review authors will have a variety of methods to present risks and more flexibility to choose the most appropriate table features to display (that is optional columns, risks expressions, complementary methods to display continuous outcomes, and so on).

TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02022631 (21 December 2013).

The clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of community-based interventions aimed at improving or maintaining quality of life in children of parents with serious mental illness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Serious parental mental illness poses a challenge to quality of life (QoL) in a substantial number of children and adolescents. Improving the lives of these children is a political and public health concern.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of community-based interventions for improving QoL in children of parents with serious mental illness (SMI).

DATA SOURCES

Nineteen health, allied health and educational databases, searched from database inception to May 2012, and supplemented with hand searches, reference checking, searches of grey literature, dissertations, ongoing research registers, forward citation tracking and key author contact.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria required≥50% of parents to have SMI or severe depression confirmed by clinical diagnosis or baseline symptoms. Children were ≤18 years of age. Community-based interventions included any non-residential psychological/psychosocial intervention involving parents or children for the purposes of improving health or well-being. Intervention comparators were not predefined and primary outcomes were validated measures of children's QoL and emotional health. Secondary outcomes were derived from UK policy and stakeholder consultation. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and the study quality was assessed via Cochrane criteria for randomised/non-randomised designs, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative criteria or a standard checklist for economic evaluations. Separate syntheses were conducted for SMI and severe depression. Standardised effect size (ES) trials were pooled using random-effects modelling for which sufficient data were available. Economic data were summarised and acceptability data were synthesised via a textual narrative approach.

RESULTS

Three trials targeted mothers/the children of mothers with psychotic symptoms. Children were ≤12 years of age and no primary QoL or emotional health outcomes were reported. Insufficient secondary outcome data prevented pooling and no eligible economic evaluations were found. Twenty-six trials targeted parents/children of parents with severe depression; 18 recruited mothers of infants<2.5 years of age. Data pooling suggested no significant short-term effect on children's emotional health [standardised ES 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.33] or social function (standardised ES 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46). Medium to large effects were observed for parents' depressive symptoms (standardised ES 0.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94) and parenting behaviours (standardised ES 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.02). One non-randomised economic evaluation was found. Intervention uptake and adherence were inconsistently reported. Incomplete evidence highlighted potential barriers from child custody losses and conflicting life circumstances. Qualitative data suggesting interventions to overcome social isolation and stigma are well received by parents. Limited data suggested that children may value peer interactions and normalising activities.

LIMITATIONS

Included trials were of poor or unclear quality with inadequate randomisation or allocation concealment, possible attrition biases and incomplete outcome reporting. Meaningful analysis was challenged by clinical and methodological heterogeneity and insufficient data for subgroup comparisons. Children's self-reports were lacking and evidence of effect remains biased towards parent-based interventions for severely depressed mothers of infants. Generalisability to other diagnoses, older children and children of fathers with SMI is unclear. A lack of high-quality economic data prevented economic modelling.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for community-based interventions to enhance QoL in children of SMI parents is lacking. The capacity to recommend evidence-based approaches is limited. Rigorous development work is needed to establish feasible and acceptable child- and family-based interventions, prior to evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness via a randomised controlled trial (RCT). A substantial programme of pilot work is recommended to underpin the development of feasible and acceptable interventions for this population. Evaluations should incorporate validated, child-centred QoL outcome measures, high-quality cost data and nested, in-depth acceptability studies. New age-appropriate instruments that better reflect the life priorities and unique challenges faced by children of parents with SMI may need to be developed.

FUNDING

This report was commissioned by the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment programme and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents and, if left untreated, are likely to recur in adulthood. Depression is highly debilitating, affecting psychosocial, family and academic functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies and antidepressant medication, alone and in combination, for the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We have examined clinical outcomes including remission, clinician and self reported depression measures, and suicide-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 June 2014. The register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they compared i) any psychological therapy with any antidepressant medication, or ii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy alone, or an antidepressant medication alone, or iii) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a placebo or'treatment as usual', or (iv) a combination of psychological therapy and antidepressant medication with a psychological therapy or antidepressant medication plus a placebo.We included studies if they involved participants aged between 6 and 18 years, diagnosed by a clinician as having Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. We applied a random-effects meta-analysis, using the odds ratio (OR) to describe dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) to describe continuous outcomes when the same measures were used, and standard mean difference (SMD) when outcomes were measured on different scales.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven studies, involving 1307 participants in this review. We also identified one ongoing study, and two additional ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion. Studies recruited participants with different severities of disorder and with a variety of comorbid disorders, including anxiety and substance use disorder, therefore limiting the comparability of the results. Regarding the risk of bias in studies, just under half the studies had adequate allocation concealment (there was insufficient information to determine allocation concealment in the remainder), outcome assessors were blind to the participants' intervention in six studies, and in general, studies reported on incomplete data analysis methods, mainly using intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. For the majority of outcomes there were no statistically significant differences between the interventions compared. There was limited evidence (based on two studies involving 220 participants) that antidepressant medication was more effective than psychotherapy on measures of clinician defined remission immediately post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.98), with 67.8% of participants in the medication group and 53.7% in the psychotherapy group rated as being in remission. There was limited evidence (based on three studies involving 378 participants) that combination therapy was more effective than antidepressant medication alone in achieving higher remission from a depressive episode immediately post-intervention (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.47), with 65.9% of participants treated with combination therapy and 57.8% of participants treated with medication, rated as being in remission. There was no evidence to suggest that combination therapy was more effective than psychological therapy alone, based on clinician rated remission immediately post-intervention (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.68).Suicide-related Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were reported in various ways across studies and could not be combined in meta-analyses. However, some trials measured suicidal ideation using standardised assessment tools suitable for meta-analysis. In one study involving 188 participants, rates of suicidal ideation were significantly higher in the antidepressant medication group (18.6%) compared with the psychological therapy group (5.4%) (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.72) and this effect appeared to remain at six to nine months (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98), with 13.6% of participants in the medication group and 3.9% of participants in the psychological therapy group reporting suicidal ideation. It was unclear what the effect of combination therapy was compared with either antidepressant medication alone or psychological therapy alone on rates of suicidal ideation. The impact of any of the assigned treatment packages on drop out was also mostly unclear across the various comparisons in the review.Limited data and conflicting results based on other outcome measures make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of any specific intervention based on these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence upon which to base conclusions about the relative effectiveness of psychological interventions, antidepressant medication and a combination of these interventions. On the basis of the available evidence, the effectiveness of these interventions for treating depressive disorders in children and adolescents cannot be established. Further appropriately powered RCTs are required.

Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: a contribution from network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Various control conditions have been employed in psychotherapy trials, but there is growing suspicion that they may lead to different effect size estimates. The present study aims to examine the differences among control conditions including waiting list (WL), no treatment (NT) and psychological placebo (PP).

METHOD

We comprehensively searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cognitive-behaviour therapies (CBT) against various control conditions in the acute phase treatment of depression, and applied network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine all direct and indirect comparisons among the treatment and control arms.

RESULTS

We identified 49 RCTs (2730 participants) comparing WL, NT, PP and CBT. This network of evidence was consistent, and the effect size estimates for CBT were substantively different depending on the control condition. The odds ratio of response for NT over WL was statistically significant at 2.9 (95% CI: 1.3-5.7). However, the quality of evidence, including publication bias, was less than ideal and none of the preplanned sensitivity analyses limiting to high-quality studies could be conducted, while findings of significant differences did not persist in post hoc sensitivity analyses trying to adjust for publication bias.

CONCLUSION

There may be important differences in control conditions currently used in psychotherapy trials.

Quantity and quality of psychotherapy trials for depression in the past five decades

BACKGROUND

Over the years randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various psychotherapies for treating depression have provided evidence to demonstrate the interventions' efficacy/effectiveness. However, recent researches suggest that the quality of some RCTs were actually less than ideal, which could hence have biased their results. The present study aims to assess (1) the changes in characteristics of RCTs of psychotherapies for treating adult depression; (2) the temporal changes in their trial quality, and (3) the quality differences among different therapeutic approaches.

METHODS

We included 135 RCTs of psychotherapies treating adult depression published from year 1969 to 2011. Temporal changes in trials' characteristics including their quantity and quality were assessed at study-level and arm-level. Quality differences among different schools of psychotherapy were assessed at arm-level.

RESULTS

Changes in quantity and improvements in methodological quality were found at study-level. Positive changes in trial quality at arm-level were observed in most aspects. Comparisons made across different schools of psychotherapy revealed statistically significant differences among them, with earlier behavior therapy trials doing worst and more recent third wave cognitive-behavior therapy doing best.

LIMITATIONS

We could not determine whether the observed changes in quality resulted from actual improvement in trial quality and/or from improved reporting. The relatively smaller number of arms for several types of interventions could weaken the representativeness when making comparisons across psychotherapeutic approaches.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed positive temporal changes in both trial quantity and quality over the past five decades and has also spotted possible areas for further improvement.

'Third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies versus other psychological therapies for depression

BACKGROUND

So-called 'third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies represents a new generation of psychological therapies that are increasingly being used in the treatment of psychological problems. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of third wave cognitive and behavioural therapy (CBT) approaches as a treatment for depression compared with other psychological therapies remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To examine the effects of all third wave CBT approaches compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression.2. To examine the effects of different third wave CBT approaches (ACT, compassionate mind training, functional analytic psychotherapy, extended behavioural activation and metacognitive therapy) compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression.3. To examine the effects of all third wave CBT approaches compared with different psychological therapy approaches (psychodynamic, behavioural, humanistic, integrative, cognitive-behavioural) for acute depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR to 01/01/12), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). We also searched CINAHL (May 2010) and PSYNDEX (June 2010) and reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews for additional published and unpublished studies. An updated search of CCDANCTR restricted to search terms relevant to third wave CBT was conducted in March 2013 (CCDANCTR to 01/02/13).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared various third wave CBT with other psychological therapies for acute depression in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information where required. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of three studies involving 144 eligible participants were included in the review. Two of the studies (56 participants) compared an early version of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with CBT, and one study (88 eligible participants) compared extended behavioural activation with CBT. No other studies of third wave CBT were identified. The two ACT studies were assessed as being at high risk of performance bias and researcher allegiance. Post-treatment results, which were based on dropout rates, showed no evidence of any difference between third wave CBT and other psychological therapies for the primary outcomes of efficacy (risk ratio (RR) of clinical response 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.64; very low quality) and acceptability. Results at two-month follow-up showed no evidence of any difference between third wave CBT and other psychological therapies for clinical response (2 studies, 56 participants, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15). Moderate statistical heterogeneity was indicated in the acceptability analyses (I(2) = 41%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that third wave CBT and CBT approaches are equally effective and acceptable in the treatment of acute depression. Evidence is limited in quantity, quality and breadth of available studies, precluding us from drawing any conclusions as to their short- or longer-term equivalence. The increasing popularity of third wave CBT approaches in clinical practice underscores the importance of completing further studies to compare various third wave CBT approaches with other psychological therapy approaches to inform clinicians and policymakers on the most effective forms of psychological therapy in treating depression.

'Third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies versus treatment as usual for depression

BACKGROUND

So-called 'third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies represent a new generation of psychological therapies that are increasingly being used in the treatment of psychological problems. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of third-wave cognitive and behavioural therapy (CBT) approaches as treatment for acute depression remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To examine the effects of all third wave CBT approaches compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/attention placebo/psychological placebo control conditions for acute depression.2. To examine the effects of different third wave CBT approaches (ACT, compassionate mind training, functional analytic psychotherapy, dialectical behaviour therapy, MBCT, extended behavioural activation and metacognitive therapy) compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/attention placebo/psychological placebo control conditions for acute depression.3. To examine the effects of all third wave CBT approaches compared with different types of comparators (treatment as usual, no treatment, waiting list, attention placebo, psychological placebo) for acute depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group Trials Specialised Register (CCDANCTR to 01/01/12), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE, (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). We also searched CINAHL (May 2010) and PSYNDEX (June 2010) and reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews for additional published and unpublished studies. An updated search of CCDANCTR restricted to search terms relevant to third wave CBT therapies was conducted in March 2013 (CCDANCTR to 01/02/13).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared third wave CBT therapies with control conditions for acute depression in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information when required. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Four small studies (224 participants) were included in the review. Little information was provided about the process of allocating participants to groups. None of the studies used independent outcome assessors, and evidence suggested researcher allegiance towards the active treatments. The four studies examined a diversity of third wave CBT approaches (extended behavioural activation, acceptance and commitment therapy and competitive memory training) and control conditions. None of the studies conducted follow-up assessments. The results showed a significant difference in clinical response rates in favour of third wave CBT when compared with treatment as usual (TAU) conditions (three studies, 170 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.95; very low quality). No significant difference in treatment acceptability based on dropout rates was found between third wave CBT approaches and TAU (four studies, 224 participants, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.08 to 12.30; very low quality). Both analyses showed substantial statistical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that third wave CBT approaches appear to be more effective than treatment as usual in the treatment of acute depression. The very small number of available studies and the diverse types of interventions and control comparators, together with methodological limitations, limit the ability to draw any conclusions on their effect in the short term or over a longer term. The increasing popularity of third wave CBT approaches in clinical practice underscores the importance of completing further studies of third wave CBT approaches in the treatment of acute depression, on a short- and long-term basis, to provide evidence of their effectiveness to policy-makers, clinicians and users of services.

'Third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies versus other psychological therapies for depression

BACKGROUND

So-called 'third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies represents a new generation of psychological therapies that are increasingly being used in the treatment of psychological problems. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of third wave cognitive and behavioural therapy (CBT) approaches as a treatment for depression compared with other psychological therapies remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To examine the effects of all third wave CBT approaches compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression.2. To examine the effects of different third wave CBT approaches (ACT, compassionate mind training, functional analytic psychotherapy, extended behavioural activation and metacognitive therapy) compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression.3. To examine the effects of all third wave CBT approaches compared with different psychological therapy approaches (psychodynamic, behavioural, humanistic, integrative, cognitive-behavioural) for acute depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR to 01/01/12), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). We also searched CINAHL (May 2010) and PSYNDEX (June 2010) and reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews for additional published and unpublished studies. An updated search of CCDANCTR restricted to search terms relevant to third wave CBT was conducted in March 2013 (CCDANCTR to 01/02/13).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared various third wave CBT with other psychological therapies for acute depression in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information where required. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of three studies involving 144 eligible participants were included in the review. Two of the studies (56 participants) compared an early version of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with CBT, and one study (88 eligible participants) compared extended behavioural activation with CBT. No other studies of third wave CBT were identified. The two ACT studies were assessed as being at high risk of performance bias and researcher allegiance. Post-treatment results, which were based on dropout rates, showed no evidence of any difference between third wave CBT and other psychological therapies for the primary outcomes of efficacy (risk ratio (RR) of clinical response 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.64; very low quality) and acceptability. Results at two-month follow-up showed no evidence of any difference between third wave CBT and other psychological therapies for clinical response (2 studies, 56 participants, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15). Moderate statistical heterogeneity was indicated in the acceptability analyses (I(2) = 41%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that third wave CBT and CBT approaches are equally effective and acceptable in the treatment of acute depression. Evidence is limited in quantity, quality and breadth of available studies, precluding us from drawing any conclusions as to their short- or longer-term equivalence. The increasing popularity of third wave CBT approaches in clinical practice underscores the importance of completing further studies to compare various third wave CBT approaches with other psychological therapy approaches to inform clinicians and policymakers on the most effective forms of psychological therapy in treating depression.