CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for prevention and time to depressive relapse: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Open access
McCartney, Mark, Nevitt, Sarah, Lloyd, Annette, Hill, Ruaraidh, White, Ross, Duarte, Rui·2021·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
DOI 10.1111/acps.13242
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: To perform a network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare the long‐term effectiveness of mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with available strategies for prevention and time to depressive relapse. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched up to June 2019. Studies evaluated MBCT for the management of depression‐related outcomes and follow‐up assessments occurred at 12 months or longer. Results: Twenty‐three publications were included, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data from 14 RCTs including 2077 participants contributed to meta‐analysis (MA) and NMA to assess relapse of depression and 13 RCTs with 2017 participants contributed to MA and NMA for time to relapse of depression. NMAs showed statistically significant advantages for MBCT over treatment as usual (TAU) for relapse of depression (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98) and for MBCT over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression (MBCT vs TAU: HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88; MBCT vs placebo: HR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67). Subgroup meta‐analysis of relapse of depression by previous number of depressive episodes showed similar results between subgroups. Subgroup meta‐analysis by the use or not of booster sessions suggests these may lead to improved effectiveness. Conclusions: MBCT is more effective than TAU in the long‐term in preventing relapse of depression and has statistically significant advantages over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression. No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and network meta-analysis found that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) was more effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for preventing depressive relapse and delayed time to relapse compared with TAU and placebo. No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies for rate or time to relapse.

Key findings

  • Twenty-three publications were included, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 14 RCTs with 2077 participants contributed to meta-analysis and network meta-analysis for relapse of depression, and 13 RCTs with 2017 participants contributed for time to relapse.
  • Network meta-analysis showed statistically significant advantages for MBCT over TAU for relapse of depression (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98) and for MBCT over TAU and placebo for time to relapse (MBCT vs TAU: HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88; MBCT vs placebo: HR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67).
  • No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies (mADM, ACC, CPE, CT or DRAM) for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.
  • Subgroup meta-analysis by previous number of depressive episodes showed similar results between subgroups; subgroup meta-analysis suggested booster sessions may lead to improved effectiveness, but results were uncertain because of heterogeneity and limited published information on timings, frequency and attendance.

Methods

  • Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies evaluating MBCT for depression-related outcomes with follow-up assessments at 12 months or longer; seven electronic databases were searched up to June 2019.
  • Data from RCTs were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis in Stata version 14.1; outcomes were relapse of depression (pooled risk ratio, RR) and time to relapse of depression (pooled hazard ratio, HR).
  • Subgroup meta-analyses were performed for relapse of depression by previous number of depressive episodes and by use of booster sessions; risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Downs and Black checklist for non-randomised trials.

Limitations

  • The paper states that data available were limited for some comparisons in the meta-analysis and network meta-analysis, and there was some heterogeneity in some analyses.
  • The paper states that inclusion criteria requiring publications to be in English and published in peer-reviewed journals may lead to selection bias and may have caused relevant studies to be overlooked; it also notes that the CIDI used in one included study was developed as an epidemiological screening tool and does not represent a clinical diagnosis.
  • The paper reports that all studies were judged high risk of bias for blinding of participants and/or personnel because participant blinding is not possible with group-delivered MBCT; three studies were high risk for blinding of outcome assessors, and one study was high risk for incomplete outcome data.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acps.13242

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Data from 13 RCTs with 2017 participants contributed to meta-analysis and network meta-analysis for time to relapse of depression.

    “13 RCTs with 2017 participants contributed to MA and NMA for time to relapse of depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In meta-analysis, MBCT had a statistically significant advantage over treatment as usual for time to relapse of depression (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.90).

    “MBCT vs TAU: HR from MA 0.52, 95% CI (0.30 to 0.90)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Meta-analysis with treatment-as-usual control subgroups split according to study eligibility criteria showed a statistically significant advantage for MBCT over treatment as usual for relapse of depression (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90).

    “MA with TAU control subgroups split according to study eligibility criteria showed a statistically significant advantage for MBCT over TAU for relapse of depression (RR 0.73, 95% CI (0.59 to 0.90)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The advantage of MBCT added to maintenance antidepressant medication over MBCT alone was not shown within network meta-analysis.

    “but this advantage was not shown within NMA (Table 2, Figure 3C,D).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Any indirect evidence in the network meta-analysis is consistent with the direct evidence where a comparison exists.
  • Findingnone given

    The publications by Michalak et al used data from the same German group of 29 participants.

    “used data from the same German group of 29 participants”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [23] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 21
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.

    “No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No differences between MBCT and maintenance antidepressant medication, active control condition, cognitive psychological education, cognitive therapy or depression relapse active monitoring were shown in meta-analysis or network meta-analysis for either relapse of depression or time to relapse of depression.

    “No differences between MBCT and mADM, ACC, CPE, CT or DRAM were shown in MA or NMA for either outcome (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The publications by Huijbers et al and Spinhoven et al were part of the Dutch multicentre MOMENT study involving a total of 317 participants.

    “The publications by Huijbers et al 20,21 and Spinhoven et al 22 were part of the Dutch multicentre MOMENT study involving a total of 317 participants”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Twenty-three publications were included in the systematic review, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials.

    “Twenty-three publications were included, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs).”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1 | Study characteristics · plain
      “Seventeen of the 23 studies were RCTs (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MA and NMA show that MBCT has a statistically significant advantage over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression.

    “MA and NMA show that MBCT is more effective than TAU in preventing relapse of depression and has statistically significant advantage over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1 | Strengths and limitations · plain
      “In conclusion, we found that MBCT is more effective than TAU in the long-term in preventing relapse of depression and has statistically significant advantages over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Only one of the RCTs clearly reports in the discussion that booster sessions were not provided.

    “Only one of the RCTs clearly reports in the discussion that booster sessions were not provided.26”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The proportion of participants who attended booster sessions was not reported in any of the included studies.

    “The proportion of participants who attended booster sessions was not reported in any of the included studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Eight of the 17 RCTs reported that booster sessions were provided.

    “Eight of the 17 RCTs reported that booster sessions were provided.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In studies comparing MBCT to antidepressant medication, no overall significant advantage to MBCT was demonstrated, and no advantage was observed by adding MBCT to antidepressant medication.

    “In all those studies that compared MBCT to antidepressant medication, no overall significant advantage to MBCT was demonstrated 12,[20][21][22]35 and no advantage was observed by adding MBCT to antidepressant medication.20”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and alternative strategies evaluated (mADM, ACC, CPE, CT, DRAM) both for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.

    “No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and alternative strategies evaluated (ie mADM, ACC, CPE, CT or DRAM) both for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    One study was judged to have a high risk of bias for the incomplete outcome data domain because only data from participants who completed the trial were included in the analysis.

    “One study was judged to have a high risk of bias for the incomplete outcome data domain as only data from participants who completed the trial were included in the analysis.31”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    MBCT has statistically significant advantages over treatment as usual and placebo for time to relapse of depression.

    “has statistically significant advantages over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Any indirect evidence in the network meta-analysis is consistent with the direct evidence where a comparison exists.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Both meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted with random effects because of anticipated heterogeneity between trials.

    “Both MA and NMA were conducted with random effects because of anticipated heterogeneity between trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Our results are similar to a meta-analysis that evaluated the effectiveness of all psychological interventions to prevent relapse compared with TAU (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82) and mADM (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08).

    “Our results are similar to a meta-analysis that evaluated the effectiveness of all psychological interventions to prevent relapse compared with TAU (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82) and mADM (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08).43”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [43] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data were extracted by the lead reviewer and then examined for accuracy by an independent reviewer.

    “Data were extracted by the lead reviewer and then examined for accuracy by an independent reviewer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Full-text versions of all retained papers were obtained and screened independently by two reviewers.

    “Full-text versions of all retained papers were obtained and screened independently by two reviewers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers.

    “Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The acute phase of CBT is effective at reducing the risk of depressive relapse.

    “Subsequent studies, however, have reported that the acute phase of CBT is effective at reducing the risk of depressive relapse.[48][49][50][51]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [48] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of MBCT for management of mental health conditions including recurrent depression.

    “This is of particular relevance for MBCT as recent systematic review of economic evaluations of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions reported that there is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of MBCT for management of mental health conditions including recurrent depression.55”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [55] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    To our knowledge, this systematic review reports the first NMA evaluating the long-term effectiveness of MBCT compared with control treatments in preventing relapse and time to relapse of depression.

    “To our knowledge, this systematic review reports the first NMA evaluating the long-term effectiveness of MBCT compared with control treatments in preventing relapse and time to relapse of depression.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    It is a clear point of NICE guidance that MBCT is only recommended for patients who have experienced 3 or more previous episodes of depression.

    “It is a clear point of NICE guidance that MBCT is only recommended for patients who have experienced 3 or more previous episodes of depression.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Risk of bias assessment was performed by one reviewer and checked for agreement by a second independent reviewer.

    “Risk of bias assessment was performed by one reviewer and checked for agreement by a second independent reviewer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patient choice can result in an improvement in adherence to treatments and consequently in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments.

    “Patient choice can result in an improvement in adherence to treatments and consequently in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments.54”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [54]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis observed that MBCT resulted in a reduced risk of depressive relapse compared with those who did not receive MBCT (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82), with any active treatment (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and with mADM (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98).

    “An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis observed that MBCT resulted in a reduced risk of depressive relapse compared with those who did not receive MBCT (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82), with any active treatment (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and with mADM (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98).6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Any disagreements regarding study eligibility were resolved by discussion and when necessary by consultation with a third reviewer.

    “Any disagreements regarding study eligibility were resolved by discussion and when necessary by consultation with a third reviewer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Our review followed best practice recommendations for systematic reviews.

    “Our review followed best practice recommendations for systematic reviews.8,9”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The data available were limited for some of the comparisons in the meta-analysis and NMA, and there was some heterogeneity in some of the analyses.

    “The data available were limited for some of the comparisons in the meta-analysis and NMA, and there was some heterogeneity in some of the analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    It is possible that the study inclusion criteria that required publications to be in English and to be published in peer-reviewed journals may lead to selection bias and may have caused some relevant studies to be overlooked.

    “It is possible that the study inclusion criteria that required publications to be in English and to be published in peer-reviewed journals may lead to selection bias and may have caused some relevant studies to be overlooked.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Results of 14 RCTs including 2077 participants could be combined in MA and NMA for 'relapse of depression', and results of 13 RCTs including 2017 participants could be combined in MA and NMA for 'time to relapse of depression'.

    “Results of 14 RCTs 2,3,12,13,20,21,[26][27][28]30,[32][33][34][35] including 2077 participants could be combined in MA and NMA for 'relapse of depression', and results of 13 RCTs 2,3,12,13,20,21,26,28,30,[32][33][34][35] including 2017 participants could be combined in MA and NMA for 'time to relapse of depression'.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Booster sessions at regular intervals may result in higher effectiveness of MBCT to prevent relapse of depression and delay time to relapse in the long-term.

    “Booster sessions at regular intervals may result in higher effectiveness of MBCT to prevent relapse of depression and delay time to relapse in the long-term.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1 | Strengths and limitations · hedged
      “Use of booster sessions may result in improved outcomes, and its use, timings, frequency and attendance should be clearly reported.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Long-term follow-up studies show that both MBCT and antidepressants can each confer enduring positive effects and thus MBCT may offer an alternative to medication in some cases.

    “However, long-term follow-up studies also show that both MBCT and antidepressants can each confer enduring positive effects and thus MBCT may offer an alternative to medication in some cases.12,34,35”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The first two major studies of MBCT found positive benefits for reducing risk of relapse, but suggested this was limited to those patients who had suffered three or more previous episodes.

    “The first two major studies of MBCT found positive benefits for reducing risk of relapse, but suggested this was limited to those patients who had suffered three or more previous episodes.2,3”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    CIs of results from NMA were generally wider than CIs of results from MA, which likely reflects the heterogeneity present within the network and the sparse data.

    “CIs of results from NMA were generally wider than CIs of results from MA which likely reflects the heterogeneity present within the network and the sparse data, often from only a single study within some links of the network, resulting in wider CIs from conducting a random-effects NMA.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Participant blinding is not possible with a group-delivered psychotherapy such as MBCT.

    “Participant blinding is not possible with a group-delivered psychotherapy such as MBCT”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
34 of 34

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Any indirect evidence in the network meta-analysis is consistent with the direct evidence where a comparison exists.

    “The underlying assumption of NMA is that any indirect evidence is consistent with the direct evidence where a comparison exists (known as the consistency assumption).18”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    MBCT was primarily designed as an intervention for depressive illness.

    “As MBCT was primarily designed as an intervention for depressive illness, this review only considers studies which have depression-related outcomes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The hazard ratios extracted from published RCT reports, some adjusted and some unadjusted, are sufficiently comparable to be pooled in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

    “Some HRs extracted from published RCT reports for the outcome 'time to relapse of depression' reflected only the treatment comparison of MBCT versus the control while other HRs were also adjusted for other factors such as number of depressive episodes and severity of depression at baseline.This may have been a source of heterogeneity.”
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?

  • Evidence suggests that MBCT may be comparable to some active treatments (e.g., treatment-as-usual and anti-depressant medication).

    “there is evidence that suggests that MBCT may be comparable to some active treatments (e.g., treatment-as-usual and anti-depressant medication) (Biesheuvel-Leliefeld et al., 2015; McCartney et al., 2021).”

    From The State- and Trait-Level Effects and Candidate Mechanisms of Four Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) Practices: Two Exploratory Studies (2023) · cites this paper as McCartney et al., 2021

    The Discussion (§4) reports no overall significant advantage for MBCT over antidepressant medication, supporting the cautious comparison with medication. But the conclusion (§4.1) finds MBCT more effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for long-term relapse prevention and time to relapse, so the TAU example is not supported as a comparable treatment. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • MBCT was developed particularly for individuals with a history of multiple prior depressive episodes in remission from active depression at the time of treatment.

    “Designed to prevent relapse of major depression [2], MBCT was developed particularly for individuals with a history of multiple prior depressive episodes in remission from active depression at the time of treatment [3].”

    From Childhood trauma and subclinical PTSD symptoms predict adverse effects and worse outcomes across two mindfulness-based programs for active depression (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Footnote misidentifies the comparator in study 13

    Minor

    The Table 2 footnote describes study 13 as comparing CPE with placebo, whereas Table 1 identifies its control groups as CPE and TAU.

  • Reported female-percentage range excludes studies in Table 1

    Minor

    The text gives an upper limit of 80% female, but Table 1 lists studies with 81% female participants.

  • DRAM network confidence interval differs between table and figure

    Minor

    Table 2 reports the network estimate for relapse versus DRAM as 0.83 (0.50 to 1.36), while Figure 3C gives 0.83 (0.49, 1.38).

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. NICE, 2009, Depression in Adults: Recognition and Management. Clinical Guideline [CG90]
  2. Higgins J, 2017, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 520 (updated June 2017)
  3. American Psychiatric Association, 2000, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn, revised) (DSM‐IV‐TR)
  4. First MB, 1996, User Guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis 1 Disorders
  5. NHS England, 2016, Improving Outcomes through Personalised Medicine

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McCartney, M., Nevitt, S., Lloyd, A., Hill, R., White, R., & Duarte, R.
Affiliations
  • Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GB)
Corresponding author
Duarte, Rui
ORCID
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-10-27
Volume
143
Issue
1
Pages
6-21
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
DOI
10.1111/acps.13242
OpenAlex
W3092345262
Semantic Scholar
51f5be82fd1026a6b2874c0c7019c4be58a64575
Cited by
93
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, depression relapse prevention, time to relapse, depression, booster sessions, long-term treatment effectiveness, usual care, placebo comparison
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Humans, Recurrence, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Secondary Prevention, Mindfulness

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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