Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among children and adolescents who are exposed to trauma, and it is often associated with significant negative impacts on their psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Many types of psychotherapies have been found to be effective for PTSD in children and adolescents. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons between different psychotherapies, the hierarchy of treatment efficacy is still unclear. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of various types of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents.A systematic search will be conducted among eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) and ProQuest Dissertations, from inception to October 2017. Randomised controlled trials, regardless of language, publication year and publication type, comparing any psychotherapies for PTSD to any control condition or alternative treatment in children and adolescents (18 years old or less) diagnosed with full or subclinical PTSD will be included. Study duration and the number of treatment sessions will not be limited. The primary outcome will be PTSD symptom severity at post-treatment as measured by a rating scale reported by the child, parent or a clinician. The secondary outcomes will include: (1) efficacy at follow-up; (2) acceptability (all-cause discontinuation); (3) anxiety symptom severity; (4) depressive symptom severity and (5) quality of life and functional improvement. Bayesian network meta-analyses for all relative outcome measures will be performed. We will conduct subgroup and sensitivity network meta-analyses to determine whether the findings are affected by study characteristics. The quality of the evidence contributing to network estimates of the primary outcome will be evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.No ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be disseminated electronically and in print. This network meta-analysis may be updated to inform and guide the clinical management of PTSD in children and adolescents.CRD42016051786.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5857664 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Zhang Yuqing Y Zhou Xinyu X Yang Lining L Hetrick Sarah E SE Weisz John R JR Cuijpers Pim P Barth Jürgen J Del Giovane Cinzia C Yuan Shuai S Cohen David D Gillies Donna D Jiang Xiaofeng X Teng Teng T Xie Peng P

BMJ open 20180312 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among children and adolescents who are exposed to trauma, and it is often associated with significant negative impacts on their psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Many types of psychotherapies have been found to be effective for PTSD in children and adolescents. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons between different psychotherapies, the hierarchy of treatment efficacy is still unclear. Therefore, we plan to ...[more]

PMID: 29530911

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDepressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.FindingsFrom 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.InterpretationDespite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.FundingNational Key Research and Development Program of China.

Project description:ImportanceSelf-harm and suicidal behavior are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among children and adolescents. The comparative performance of psychotherapies for suicidality is unclear because few head-to-head clinical trials have been conducted.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of psychotherapies for the treatment of self-harm and suicidality among children and adolescents.Data sourcesFour major bibliographic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase) were searched for clinical trials comparing psychotherapy with control conditions from inception to September 2020.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials comparing psychotherapies for suicidality and/or self-harm with control conditions among children and adolescents were included after a blinded review by 3 independent reviewers (A.B., M.P., and J.W.).Data extraction and synthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed for data abstraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate study-level risk of bias. Data abstraction was performed by 1 reviewer (A.B.) and confirmed by 2 independent blinded reviewers (J.W. and M.P.). Data were analyzed from October 15, 2020, to February 15, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were dichotomized self-harm and retention in treatment. The secondary outcomes were dichotomized all-cause treatment discontinuation and scores on instruments measuring suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary odds ratios (ORs) and Cohen d standardized mean differences (SMDs). Negative Cohen d SMDs or ORs less than 1 indicated that the treatment reduced the parameter of interest relative to the control condition (eg, signifying a beneficial association with suicidal ideation).ResultsThe systematic search generated 1272 unique records. Of those, 44 randomized clinical trials (5406 total participants; 4109 female participants [76.0%]) from 49 articles were selected (5 follow-up studies were merged with their primary clinical trials to avoid publication bias). The selected clinical trials spanned January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2020. The median duration of treatment was 3 months (range, 0.25-12.00 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range, 1-36 months). None of the investigated psychotherapies were associated with increases in study withdrawals or improvements in retention in treatment compared with treatment as usual. Dialectical behavioral therapies were associated with reductions in self-harm (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64) and suicidal ideation (Cohen d SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.23) at the end of treatment, while mentalization-based therapies were associated with decreases in self-harm (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.97) and suicidal ideation (Cohen d SMD, -1.22; 95% CI, -2.18 to -0.26) at the end of follow-up. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of high risk of bias overall, heterogeneity, publication bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough some psychotherapeutic modalities appear to be acceptable and efficacious for reducing self-harm and suicidality among children and adolescents, methodological issues and high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.

Project description:IntroductionDepressive disorder is common in children and adolescents, with important consequences and serious impairments in terms of personal and social functioning. While both pharmacological and psychological interventions have been shown to be effective, there is still uncertainty about the balance between these and what treatment strategy should be preferred in clinical practice. Therefore, we aim to compare and rank in a network meta-analysis (NMA) the commonly used psychological, pharmacological and combined interventions for depressive disorder in children and adolescents.Methods and analysisWe will update the literature search of two previous NMAs for the identification of trials of antidepressant and psychotherapy alone for depressive disorder in children and adolescents. For identification of trials of combination interventions, seven databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LiLACS) will be searched from date of inception. We will also search ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and check relevant reports on the US Food and Drug Administration website for unpublished data. Building on our previous findings in the field, we will include any commonly prescribed oral antidepressants and any manualised or structured psychotherapies, as well as their combinations. Randomised controlled trials assessing any active intervention against active comparator or pill placebo/psychological controls in acute treatment for depressive disorder in children and adolescents will be included. The primary outcomes will be efficacy (mean change in depressive symptoms), and acceptability of treatment (dropout rate due to any cause). The secondary outcomes will be remission rate, tolerability of treatment (dropouts for adverse events), as well as suicide-related outcomes (suicidal behaviour or ideation). We will perform Bayesian NMAs for all relative outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.DisseminationThis NMA will provide the most up to date and clinically useful information about the comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychological intervention and their combination in the acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder. This is the newest NMA and therefore these results are very important in terms of evidence-based medicine. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42015020841.

Project description:ImportanceAnxiety disorders are common in children and adolescents, and uncertainty remains regarding the optimal strategy of psychotherapies in this population.ObjectiveTo compare and rank the different types of psychotherapies and the different ways of delivering psychological treatments for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ProQuest Dissertations, LILACS (Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde), international trial registers, and US Food and Drug Administration reports were searched from inception to November 30, 2017.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials that compared any structured psychotherapy with another psychotherapy or a control condition for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents were selected.Data extraction and synthesisFour researchers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analysis within the random-effects model were used to synthesize data.Main outcomes and measuresEfficacy (change in anxiety symptoms) posttreatment and at follow-up, acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and quality of life and functional improvement were measured. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.ResultsA total of 101 unique trials including 6625 unique participants compared 11 different psychotherapies with 4 specific control conditions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low or very low for most comparisons. For efficacy, most psychotherapies were significantly more effective than the wait list condition posttreatment (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.43 to -0.61) and at the longest follow-up (SMD, -1.84 to -1.64). However, only group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was significantly more effective than the other psychotherapies and all control conditions posttreatment. For acceptability, bibliotherapy CBT had significantly more all-cause discontinuations than some psychotherapies and control conditions (range of odds ratios, 2.48-9.32). In terms of quality of life and functional improvement, CBT (delivered in different ways) was significantly beneficial compared with psychological placebo and the wait list condition (SMDs, 0.73 to 1.99).Conclusions and relevanceGroup CBT would be the more appropriate choice of psychotherapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, based on these findings. Other types of psychotherapies and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Further research is needed to explore specific anxiety disorders, disorder-specific psychotherapy, and moderators of treatment effect.Trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42015016283.

Project description:Background: With the growing importance of research about the association between neuroinflammation and major depressive disorder (MDD), anti-inflammatory agents have been used as a new antidepressant therapy in clinical practice. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) with up-to-date evidence to compare different anti-inflammatory agents for improving the treatment of MDD patients. Methods: To identify eligible randomized clinical trials, four databases (i.e, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception date to May 31, 2020. Anti-inflammatory agents were defined as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, cytokine inhibitors, statins, pioglitazone, minocycline, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and omega-3 fatty acid (Omega-3 FA). The main outcomes of this NMA were efficacy, acceptability and remission rate. Risk ratio (RR) was adopted for dichotomous outcomes, and the confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. STATA 14.0 and R 3.6.3 were used to conduct the NMA. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182531). Results: A total of 39 studies, involving 2871 participants, were included in quantitative data synthesis. For efficacy, NSAIDs (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.73) and pioglitazone (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.20-0.84) were more favorable than placebo. With respect to acceptability, NSAIDs were more acceptable than placebo (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.77-0.99) and minocycline (RR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.03-1.49). For remission, NSAIDs were more superior than placebo (RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.27-0.79) and Omega-3 FA (RR=2.01, 95%CI: 1.09-3.90), while NACs were more favorable than placebo (RR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.13-0.99). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, corticosteroids (0.86) were the best anti-inflammatory agent for MDD patients in terms of efficacy, but the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents were not statistically significant. As for acceptability, NSAIDs (0.81) were much better than other anti-inflammatory agents. Besides, NAC (0.80) was the best anti-inflammatory agent in the terms of remission. Conclusions: In summary, we found that corticosteroids were more superior than other agents in terms of efficacy according to the SUCRA value. However, this result must be interpreted with caution because the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents did not reach statistical significance. NSAIDs were recommended for acceptability and NAC for remission rate.

Project description:Objective An estimated 3.8% of the global population experiences depression, according to the [2019] WHO report. Evidence supports the efficacy of exercise training (EX) for depression; however, its comparative efficacy to conventional, evidence-supported psychotherapies remains understudied. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of exercise training (EX), behavioral activation therapy (BA), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and non-directive supportive therapy (NDST). Methods Our search was performed in seven relevant databases (inception to March 10, 2020) and targeted randomized trials comparing psychological interventions head-to-head and/or to a treatment as usual (TAU) or waitlist (WL) control for the treatment of adults (18 years or older) with depression. Included trials assessed depression using a validated psychometric tool. Results From 28,716 studies, 133 trials with 14,493 patients (mean age of 45.8 years; 71.9% female) were included. All treatment arms significantly outperformed TAU (standard mean difference [SMD] range, −0.49 to −0.95) and WL (SMD range, −0.80 to −1.26) controls. According to surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities, BA was mostly likely to have the highest efficacy (1.6), followed by CBT (1.9), EX (2.8), and NDST (3.8). Effect size estimates between BA and CBT (SMD = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.50 to 0.31]), BA and EX (−0.22, [−0.68 to 0.24]), and CBT and EX (−0.12, [−0.42 to 0.17]) were very small, suggesting comparable treatment effects of BA, CBT, and EX. With individual comparisons of EX, BA, and CBT to NDST, we found small to moderate effect sizes (0.09 to 0.46), suggesting EX, BA, and CBT may equally outperform NDST. Conclusions Findings provide preliminary yet cautionary support for the clinical use of exercise training for adult depression. High study heterogeneity and lack of sound investigations of exercise must be considered. Continued research is needed to position exercise training as an evidence-based therapy.

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets