Dataset Information

Different Types and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Acute Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Anxiety disorders are common in children and adolescents, and uncertainty remains regarding the optimal strategy of psychotherapies in this population. Objective:To compare and rank the different types of psychotherapies and the different ways of delivering psychological treatments for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Data Sources:PubMed, 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 Selection:Randomized 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 Synthesis:Four 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 Measures:Efficacy (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. Results:A 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 Relevance:Group 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 Registration:PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42015016283.

SUBMITTER: Zhou X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583467 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Different Types and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Acute Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Network Meta-analysis.

Zhou Xinyu X Zhang Yuqing Y Furukawa Toshiaki A TA Cuijpers Pim P Pu Juncai J Weisz John R JR Yang Lining L Hetrick Sarah E SE Del Giovane Cinzia C Cohen David D James Anthony C AC Yuan Shuai S Whittington Craig C Jiang Xiaofeng X Teng Teng T Cipriani Andrea A Cipriani Andrea A Xie Peng P

JAMA psychiatry 20190101 1

<h4>Importance</h4>Anxiety disorders are common in children and adolescents, and uncertainty remains regarding the optimal strategy of psychotherapies in this population.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare and rank the different types of psychotherapies and the different ways of delivering psychological treatments for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nu ...[more]

PMID: 30383099

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: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.

Project description:Background:Depression and anxiety are the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. Bibliotherapy is a treatment using written materials for mental health problems. Its main advantages are ease of use, low cost, low staffing demands, and greater privacy. Yet few meta-analyses have focused on the effect of bibliotherapy on depression and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Methods:We included randomized controlled trials comparing bibliotherapy with control conditions for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents (aged ?18 years). Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to January 2017. Efficacy was defined as mean change scores in depression and anxiety symptoms. Acceptability was defined as the proportion of participants who discontinued the treatment. Random effects model was used. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results:Eight studies with 979 participants were selected. At posttreatment, bibliotherapy was significantly more effective than the control conditions in reducing the symptoms of depression or anxiety (standardized mean difference, -0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.89 to -0.15). Bibliotherapy did not have statistically significantly more all-cause discontinuations than controls (risk ratios, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.95). We also performed subgroup analyses for efficacy outcomes in different categories (types of disorder, mean age, control conditions, and parental involvement) of studies and found that bibliotherapy has been more effective in depressive adolescents. Limitations:Limited studies were eligible in this review and hence there was potential publication bias. Conclusion:According to the findings in this review, bibliotherapy may be more beneficial in treating depression in adolescents, but shows less robust effects for anxiety in children. Further well-defined clinical studies should be performed to confirm these outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionDisruptive behaviour disorders are common among children and adolescents, with negative impacts on the youths, their families and society. Although multiple psychosocial treatments are effective in decreasing the symptoms of disruptive behaviour disorders, comprehensive evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and acceptability between these treatments is still lacking. Therefore, we propose a systematic review and network meta-analysis, integrating both direct and indirect comparisons to obtain a hierarchy of treatment efficacy and acceptability.Methods and analysisThe present protocol will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Ten databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, OpenDissertations, The Cochrane Library, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched from inception for randomised controlled trials of psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with disruptive behaviour disorders, without restrictions on language, publication year and status. The primary outcomes will be efficacy at post-treatment (severity of disruptive behaviour disorders at post-treatment) and acceptability (dropout rate for any reason) of psychosocial treatments. The secondary outcomes will involve efficacy at follow-up, severity of internalising problems and improvement of social functioning. Two authors will independently conduct the study selection and data extraction, assess the risk of bias using the revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and evaluate the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to network meta-analysis. We will perform Bayesian network meta-analyses with a random effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings.Ethics and disseminationThe research does not require ethical approval. Results are planned to be published in journals or presented at conferences. The network meta-analysis will provide information on a hierarchy of treatment efficacy and acceptability and help make a clinical treatment choice.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197448.

Dataset Information

Different Types and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Acute Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Network Meta-analysis.

Publications

Different Types and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Acute Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Network Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets