Cited by 388Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Psychotherapies for depression: a network meta-analysis covering efficacy, acceptability and long-term outcomes of all main treatment types

Open access

Abstract

The effects of psychotherapies for depression have been examined in several hundreds of randomized trials, but no recent network meta‐analysis (NMA) has integrated the results of these studies. We conducted an NMA of trials comparing cognitive behavioural, interpersonal, psychodynamic, problem‐solving, behavioural activation, life‐review and “third wave” therapies and non‐directive supportive counseling with each other and with care‐as‐usual, waiting list and pill placebo control conditions. Response (50% reduction in symptoms) was the primary outcome, but we also assessed remission, standardized mean difference, and acceptability (all‐cause dropout rate). Random‐effects pairwise and network meta‐analyses were conducted on 331 randomized trials with 34,285 patients. All therapies were more efficacious than care‐as‐usual and waiting list control conditions, and all therapies – except non‐directive supportive counseling and psychodynamic therapy – were more efficacious than pill placebo. Standardized mean differences compared with care‐as‐usual ranged from –0.81 for life‐review therapy to –0.32 for non‐directive supportive counseling. Individual psychotherapies did not differ significantly from each other, with the only exception of non‐directive supportive counseling, which was less efficacious than all other therapies. The results were similar when only studies with low risk of bias were included. Most therapies still had significant effects at 12‐month follow‐up compared to care‐as‐usual, and problem‐solving therapy was found to have a somewhat higher long‐term efficacy than some other therapies. No consistent differences in acceptability were found. Our conclusion is that the most important types of psychotherapy are efficacious and acceptable in the acute treatment of adult depression, with few significant differences between them. Patient preference and availability of each treatment type may play a larger role in the choice between types of psychotherapy, although it is possible that a more detailed characterization of patients with a diagnosis of depression may lead to a more precise matching between individual patients and individual psychotherapies.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This network meta-analysis of 331 randomized trials (34,285 patients) found that all main psychotherapies for adult depression were more efficacious than care-as-usual and waiting list, with few significant differences between therapies. Non-directive supportive counseling was the main exception, being less efficacious than other therapies, while acceptability differences were not consistent.

Key findings

  • Across 331 trials and 34,285 patients, all therapies were more efficacious than care-as-usual and waiting list; all except non-directive supportive counseling and psychodynamic therapy were more efficacious than pill placebo.
  • Standardized mean differences versus care-as-usual ranged from −0.81 for life-review therapy to −0.32 for non-directive supportive counseling. Individual psychotherapies did not differ significantly from each other, except non-directive supportive counseling was less efficacious than all other therapies (response ORs 0.49–0.65).
  • At 12 (±6) months, among 90 studies, CBT, behavioural activation, problem-solving, interpersonal, and psychodynamic therapy had significant effects versus care-as-usual; problem-solving therapy was significantly more effective than CBT, “third wave” therapies, and non-directive supportive counseling at follow-up.
  • No consistent acceptability differences were found between therapies. The paper reports that acceptability of all therapies except interpersonal psychotherapy and life-review therapy was significantly lower than waiting list (ORs 0.49–0.67), and psychodynamic therapy was significantly less acceptable than care-as-usual (OR=0.64).

Methods

  • Network meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing eight major psychotherapy types (CBT, behavioural activation, problem-solving, “third wave,” interpersonal, psychodynamic, non-directive supportive counseling, life-review) with each other and with waiting list, care-as-usual, or pill placebo. Searches covered 1966 to January 1, 2020; 24,647 abstracts were examined, 2,914 full texts retrieved, and 331 trials included.
  • Primary outcome was treatment response (≥50% reduction in depressive symptoms); also assessed remission, standardized mean difference, and acceptability (all-cause dropout). Random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted, with SUCRA rankings, inconsistency tests, sensitivity analyses (low risk of bias, excluding life-review, excluding pill placebo), meta-regression, and GRADE/CINeMA certainty ratings.
  • Risk of bias was assessed with four Cochrane criteria; 102 studies (30.8%) had low overall risk of bias, 148 (44.7%) moderate, and 81 (24.4%) high.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the proportion of low-risk-of-bias studies was still relatively small (30.8%), that direct and indirect evidence showed discrepancies until 37 influential outliers were excluded, and that relatively few trials reported longer-term outcomes, making those effects uncertain.
  • The paper also notes that pill placebo comparisons were based on a small number of studies (10 studies; 3.0%) and that life-review therapy is mostly used in older adults, which may violate the transitivity assumption; pill placebo studies could also include antidepressant randomization, another possible transitivity concern.
  • Evident from the text: most evidence focused on CBT (211 trials; 63.7%), care-as-usual, and waiting list, while some therapies and comparisons had few trials, limiting precision for those nodes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wps.20860

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 25 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
39 of 39
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The network meta-analysis assumes transitivity, meaning that studies comparing different treatments are similar enough to combine direct and indirect evidence.

    “The statistical examination of the transitivity assumption was conducted using tests of local and global inconsistency 20 .”
    “may violate the transitivity assumption”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Randomized patients absent from the original responder analyses are non-responders.

    “Patients randomized but not included in the analyses of responders in the original reports were assumed to be non-responders and included in the current analyses in order to abide the intention-to-treat principle.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous meta-analyses omitted life-review therapy due to an insufficient number of studies.

    “Life-review therapy was not included in previous metaanalyses, because the number of studies was too small.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 33 references

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–388 of 388

Metadata

Authors
Cuijpers, P., Quero, S., Noma, H., Ciharova, M., Miguel, C., Karyotaki, E., Cipriani, A., Cristea, I. A., & Furukawa, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Universitat Jaume I (ES)
  • The Institute of Statistical Mathematics (JP)
  • Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-05-18
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
283-293
ISSN
  • 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-5545
OpenAlex
W3112767874
Cited by
388
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 15
FWCI
37.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-2017-08-ST2-006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
depression, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, problem-solving therapy, behavioral activation, life review therapy, third-wave therapies, treatment efficacy, treatment acceptability, long-term outcomes, remission, placebo response

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review