CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 138Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumPregnancy-related medical researchPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interventions to treat mental disorders during pregnancy: A systematic review and multiple treatment meta-analysis

Open access
van Ravesteyn, Leontien M., Lambregtse - van den Berg, Mijke P., Hoogendijk, Witte J. G., Kamperman, Astrid M.·2017·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0173397PMC PMC5373816
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For women suffering from an antepartum mental disorder (AMD), there is lack of evidence-based treatment algorithms due to the complicated risk-benefit analysis for both mother and unborn child. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to treat AMD and performed a meta-analysis of the estimated treatment effect on the psychiatric symptoms during pregnancy. METHODS: MedLine, PsycINFO and Embase databases were searched by two independent reviewers for clinical trials with a control condition on treatment of women with AMD, i.e. major depressive (MDD), anxiety, psychotic, eating, somatoform and personality disorders. We inventoried the effect of the treatment, i.e. decrease of psychiatric symptoms at the end of the treatment or postpartum. We adhered to the PRISMA-protocol. FINDINGS: Twenty-nine trials were found involving 2779 patients. Trials studied patients with depressive disorders (k = 28), and anxiety disorders (k = 1). No pharmacological trials were detected. A form of psychotherapy, like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (g = -0.61; 95%CI:-0.73 to -0.49, I2 = 0%; k = 7) or Interpersonal Psychotherapy (g = -0.67; 95%CI:-1.27 to -0.07; I2 = 79%; k = 4), holds robust benefit for pregnant women with MDD. Body-oriented interventions (g = -0.43; 95%CI:-0.61 to -0.25; I2 = 17%; k = 7) and acupuncture (g = -0.43; 95%CI:-0.80 to -0.06; I2 = 0%; k = 2) showed medium sized reduction of depressive symptoms. Bright light therapy (g = -0.59; 95%CI:-1.25 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; k = 2), and food supplements (g = -0.51; 95%CI:-1.02 to 0.01; I2 = 20%; k = 3) did not show significant treatment effects. One study was found on Integrative Collaborative Care. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found a robust moderate treatment effect of CBT for MDD during pregnancy, and to a lesser extent for IPT. As an alternative, positive results were found for body-oriented interventions and acupuncture. No evidence was found for bright light therapy and food supplements. Only non-pharmacological trials on women with MDD were found. Research on a wider range of AMD is 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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0173397

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Flow diagram of the review selection procedure, adhered to the PRISMA statement.
Fig 1 Flow diagram of the review selection procedure, adhered to the PRISMA statement.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Funnel plot including pseudo 95% confidence limits of the included trials (k = 25) stratified by intervention.
Fig 2 Funnel plot including pseudo 95% confidence limits of the included trials (k = 25) stratified by intervention.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Hedges g of interventions to reduce depressive symptoms in pregnant women.
Fig 3 Hedges g of interventions to reduce depressive symptoms in pregnant women.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Intervention effect in the full set of included trials (k = 25) using fixed and random estimation, and for different subgroups of trials. Pooled effect sizes for subgroups of trials are estimated using random-effects estimation. Fixed-effect estimation was used to compare differences over subgroups.
Fig 4 Intervention effect in the full set of included trials (k = 25) using fixed and random estimation, and for different subgroups of trials. Pooled effect sizes for subgroups of trials are estimated using random-effects estimation. Fixed-effect estimation was used to compare differences over subgroups.CC BY · 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. LC Lamprou, 2013, Randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of major depressive disorder in pregnancy, J ECT, 29, 150

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 138

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van Ravesteyn, L. M., Lambregtse - van den Berg, M. P., Hoogendijk, W. J. G., & Kamperman, A. M.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Corresponding author
Kamperman, Astrid M.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2017-03-30
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
e0173397
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0173397
PMC
PMC5373816
OpenAlex
W2599194757
Semantic Scholar
9d01af578d6ed04023e9ec64e63c387bd4d95122
Cited by
138
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Erasmus University Medical Center (MRACE) (2008-8111)
  • Coolsingel Foundation (2009)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
antenatal depression, anxiety disorders in pregnancy, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, body-oriented interventions, acupuncture, bright light therapy, dietary supplements, maternal mental health, postpartum outcomes, treatment algorithm, risk-benefit assessment, psychosis, eating disorders, somatoform disorders, personality disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Phototherapy, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Psychotherapy, Acupuncture Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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