Cited by 34Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStress Responses and CortisolAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Biological markers evaluated in randomized trials of psychological treatments for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Cristea, Ioana A., Karyotaki, Eirini, Hollon, Steven D., Cuijpers, Pim, Gentili, Claudio·2019·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Though it is widely believed that psychotherapy changes biology, this contention is largely based on observational data, subject to confounding. We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis of biological variables assessed, as outcomes or predictors of response, in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy for adult depression. Fifty-one trials (5123 participants) and a pooled analysis were included. Biological markers were outcomes in 43 studies and predictors of treatment response in 9. At post-treatment, psychotherapy could not be distinguished from control conditions for glycaemic control (Hb1AC), 7 trials, Hedges' g= -.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.29, I 2 = 65% and cortisol concentration after-wake, 5 trials, Hedges' g= -.19, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.06, I 2 = 0%. Follow-up results were similar. For the other biological domains (immunological, neurobiological, inflammatory, weight, blood pressure), overall findings were mixed and often inconsistent. Few trials investigated prediction of response, with only neuroimaging markers showing promise. Across domains, we found limited evidence that benefits of psychological treatments for depression translate to biological outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.022

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Reviews have found no evidence to support dose escalation but some evidence for the other strategies (switching, augmentation).

    “Reviews have found no evidence to support dose escalation but some evidence for the other strategies.”
  • Recent systematic reviews of pharmacotherapy studies identified seven trials for dose escalation, four for switching of antidepressants, 48 for various augmentation agents, or 25 studies for augmentation of pharmacotherapy with psychotherapies.

    “Recent systematic reviews of pharmacotherapy studies identified seven trials for dose escalation, 534 four for switching of antidepressants, 535 48 for various augmentation agents, or 25 studies for augmentation of pharmacotherapy with psychotherapies. 536”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cuijpers, P., Reijnders, M., Karyotaki, E., (Under review). Psychological treatment of depression: An updated meta-analytic database of randomized trial. BMC Psychiatry.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cristea, I. A., Karyotaki, E., Hollon, S. D., Cuijpers, P., & Gentili, C.
Affiliations
  • Babeș-Bolyai University (RO)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Gentili, Claudio
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
101
Pages
32-44
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2930641302
Cited by
34
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-09-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Romanian Ministery of Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI (PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2016-1054)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, psychotherapy, biomarkers, treatment response prediction, glycemic control, HbA1c, cortisol, neuroimaging, immunological markers, inflammatory markers, blood pressure, weight
MeSH terms
Brain, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Psychotherapy, Biomarkers, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Neuroimaging

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