Cited by 7Epigenetics and DNA MethylationPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStress Responses and Cortisol

Epigenetic correlates of the psychological interventions outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Pellicano, Gaia Romana, Daniela, Sambucini, Chiara, Ciacchella, Arianna, Giusti, Paola, Aceto, Carlo, Lai·2022·Journal of Affective Disorders Reports

Abstract

In the last years, there was a growing interest in exploring the potential epigenetic effects of psychotherapeutic approaches, but no clear directions have been identified. This article aimed to test and summarize the epigenetic correlates of the different psychological treatments’ outcomes. We considered only studies, published from inception to July 2021, that provided an epigenetic outcome assessed pre-and post- psychological treatment in either clinical or non-clinical populations. The article adhered to PRISMA, STROBE, Cochrane, and New Castle Ottawa bias scales, and it has been registered on PROSPERO. A systematic review of 14 studies and a meta-analysis on 2 observative prospective cohort studies were processed. The findings of the systematic review showed that, in the majority of the studies, subjects responding to therapy were associated with a specific decrease or increase in the methylation status, that in subjects not responding to therapy was associated in the opposite way. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in the methylation status of the MAOA gene after a symptom-vocalization CBT only in the respondent participants with anxiety. The design of the majority of the studies included in the systematic review was observational, which is more prone to confounders and selection bias. There were few eligible studies for the meta-analyses, making the findings to be considered as preliminary. The findings suggest dynamic changes in epigenetic mechanisms after a psychological treatment that are related to clinical outcomes with an inverse association between remitters and not-remitters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100310

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pellicano, G. R., Daniela, S., Chiara, C., Arianna, G., Paola, A., & Carlo, L.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
7
Pages
100310
ISSN
2666-9153 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206465411
Cited by
6
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
FWCI
0.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
epigenetics, DNA methylation, psychotherapy outcome, psychological intervention, MAOA gene, cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety, treatment response, remission, gene-environment interaction

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.

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