Cited by 90Diabetes Management and EducationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavior therapy for patients with diabetes and depression

Li, Chen, Xu, Duo, Hu, Mingyue, Tan, Yongfei, Zhang, Ping, Li, Guichen, Chen, Li·2017·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically examine the efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for diabetic patients who have comorbid depression and to identify which aspects can be improved through intervention.Methods A systematic literature review was performed using multiple databases. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT that were conducted with diabetes patients with clinically relevant depression. Review Manager version 5.3 was used to obtain pooled results.Results Ten RCTs, with a total sample size of 998 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control groups, the CBT groups had statistically significant, long-term improvements in depression (standardized mean differences [SMD]=-0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-0.98 to -0.31), P=0.0002), quality of life (SMD=0.29, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.51), P=0.007), fasting glucose (SMD=0.21, 95%CI (0.04 to 0.37), P=0.01) and anxiety (SMD=-0.49, 95%CI (-0.88 to -0.10), P=0.01). No improvements were found in glycemic control or in diabetes-related distress.Conclusions The results of this meta-analysis showed that CBT can be effective in reducing depression symptoms and fasting glucose in diabetes patients with comorbid depression as well as in improving quality of life and anxiety in the long-term. The results showed that CBT can serve as a promising treatment alternative for diabetes patients with comorbid depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.02.006

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, C., Xu, D., Hu, M., Tan, Y., Zhang, P., Li, G., & Chen, L.
Affiliations
Jilin University (CN)
Corresponding author
Chen, Li
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
95
Pages
44-54
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588926131
Cited by
90
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
JiLin University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, diabetes mellitus, depression, comorbid depression, quality of life, anxiety, fasting blood glucose, glycemic control, diabetes distress
MeSH terms
Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Psychotherapy, Group, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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