Dataset Information

Comparative clinical trials in psychotherapy: Have large effects been replicated?

ABSTRACT: AIMS:The purpose of this review is to examine the replication attempts of psychotherapy clinical trials for depression and anxiety. We focus specifically on replications of trials that exhibit large differences between psychotherapies. The replicability of these trials is especially important for meta-analysis, where the inclusion of false-positive trials can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy. METHODS:Standard replication criteria were developed to distinguish direct from conceptual replication methodologies. Next, an exhaustive literature search was conducted for published meta-analyses of psychotherapy comparisons. Trials that exhibited large effects (d > 0.8) were culled from these meta-analyses. For each trial, a cited replication was conducted to determine if the trial had been subsequently replicated by either 'direct' or 'conceptual' methods. Finally, a broader search was conducted to examine the extent of replication efforts in the psychotherapy literature overall. RESULTS:In the meta-analytic search, a total of N = 10 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. From these meta-analyses, N = 12 distinct trials exhibited large effect sizes. The meta-analyses containing more than two large effect trials reported evidence for treatment superiority. A cited replication search yielded no direct replication attempts (N = 0) for the trials with large effects, and N = 4 conceptual replication attempts of average or above average quality. However, of these four attempts, only two partially corroborated the results from their original trial. CONCLUSION:Meta-analytic reviews are influenced by trials with large effects, and it is not uncommon for these reviews to contain several such trials. Since we find no evidence that trials with such large effects are directly replicable, treatment superiority conclusions from these reviews are highly questionable. To enhance the quality of clinical science, the development of authoritative replication criteria for clinical trials is needed. Moreover, quality benchmarks should be considered before trials are included in a meta-analysis, or replications are attempted.

SUBMITTER: Frost ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7232123 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative clinical trials in psychotherapy: Have large effects been replicated?

Frost Nickolas D ND Baskin Thomas W TW Wampold Bruce E BE

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 20200515

<h4>Aims</h4>The purpose of this review is to examine the replication attempts of psychotherapy clinical trials for depression and anxiety. We focus specifically on replications of trials that exhibit large differences between psychotherapies. The replicability of these trials is especially important for meta-analysis, where the inclusion of false-positive trials can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy.<h4>Methods</h4>Standard replication criteria were developed to distinguish ...[more]

PMID: 32410720

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHeart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.InterventionsBA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months.ResultsA total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

Dataset Information

Comparative clinical trials in psychotherapy: Have large effects been replicated?

Publications

Comparative clinical trials in psychotherapy: Have large effects been replicated?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets