CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of psychotherapies for depression on response, remission, reliable change, and deterioration: A meta‐analysis

Cuijpers, Pim, Karyotaki, Eirini, Ciharova, Marketa, Miguel, Clara, Noma, Hisashi, Furukawa, Toshi A.·2021·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
DOI 10.1111/acps.13335PMC PMC8457213
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: Meta‐analyses of psychotherapies usually report effects sizes, while clinicians and patients need to know the proportion of patients who benefit from therapy. We conducted a meta‐analysis of therapies for depression reporting the rates of response (50% symptom reduction), remission (HAM‐D <7), clinical significant deterioration for psychotherapy, and control conditions (CAU, waitlist, and pill placebo), as well as the relative risk of these outcomes and the numbers‐needed‐to‐be‐treated (NNTs). Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and included 228 randomized trials comparing psychotherapy for depression against control conditions (75 with low risk of bias). Only therapies with at least 10 trials were included. We extracted outcomes from the studies, and for those studies not reporting the outcomes, we used a validated method to estimate the rates. Results: The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 41% (95% CI: 38~43), 17% (15~20) for usual care (CAU), and 16% (95% CI: 14~18) for waitlist. No significant differences between types of therapy were found. The NNT for therapy versus CAU was 5.3 and versus waitlist 3.9. About one third of patients remitted after therapy compared with 7%–13% in control conditions. The rates of deterioration were 5% versus 12%–13%, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses supported the general findings. Conclusion: Psychotherapies for depression may be effective compared with control conditions, but more than half of patients receiving therapy do not respond and only one third remitted. More effective treatments and treatment strategies such as sequencing and combining treatments are clearly needed.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/acps.13335

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 PRISMA flowchart
FIGURE 1 PRISMA flowchartCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 L'Abbé plot. (A) Psychotherapy versus care‐as‐usual. (B) Psychotherapy versus waitlist
FIGURE 2 L'Abbé plot. (A) Psychotherapy versus care‐as‐usual. (B) Psychotherapy versus waitlistCC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.1002/da.22491 · DOI
  2. 10.1017/S2045796018000057 · DOI
  3. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.97 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0269881120922950 · DOI
  5. 10.1001/jama.2016.17324 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cuijpers P, 2021, The effects of psychological treatments of depression on response, remission, reliable change, and deterioration: a meta‐analysis, Open Science Framework
  7. CuijpersP KaryotakiE.A meta‐analytic database of randomised trials on psychotherapies for depression.2020.https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/825C6 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/sim.1186 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Higgins JPT, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0
  10. 10.1093/ije/31.1.72 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.4088/JCP.09m05949blu · DOI
  12. 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.179275 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/wps.20900 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Ciharova, M., Miguel, C., Noma, H., & Furukawa, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands
  • Department of Data Science Institute of Statistical Mathematics Tokyo Japan
  • Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health Kyoto Japan
ORCID
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-07-04
Volume
144
Issue
3
Pages
288-299
ISSN
  • 0001-690X
  • 1600-0447
DOI
10.1111/acps.13335
PMC
PMC8457213
Cited by
336
References
18
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (vor)

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