Jesse B Klein1, Rachel H Jacobs, Mark A Reinecke. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. jesseklein@northwestern.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explicate differences between early and recent meta-analytic estimates of the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for adolescent depression. METHOD: Meta-analytic procedures were used to investigate whether methodological characteristics moderated mean effect sizes among 11 randomized, controlled trials of CBT focusing on adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for unipolar depression. RESULTS: Cumulative meta-analyses indicated that effects of CBT have decreased from large effects in early trials, and confidence intervals have become narrower. Effect sizes were significantly smaller among studies that used intent-to-treat analytic strategies, compared CBT to active treatments, were conducted in clinical settings, and featured greater methodological rigor based on CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) criteria. The mean posttreatment effect size of 0.53 was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in estimates of the efficacy of CBT for depressed adolescents may stem from methodological differences between early and more recent investigations. Overall, results support the effectiveness of CBT for the treatment of adolescent depression.
OBJECTIVE: To explicate differences between early and recent meta-analytic estimates of the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for adolescent depression. METHOD: Meta-analytic procedures were used to investigate whether methodological characteristics moderated mean effect sizes among 11 randomized, controlled trials of CBT focusing on adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for unipolar depression. RESULTS: Cumulative meta-analyses indicated that effects of CBT have decreased from large effects in early trials, and confidence intervals have become narrower. Effect sizes were significantly smaller among studies that used intent-to-treat analytic strategies, compared CBT to active treatments, were conducted in clinical settings, and featured greater methodological rigor based on CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) criteria. The mean posttreatment effect size of 0.53 was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in estimates of the efficacy of CBT for depressed adolescents may stem from methodological differences between early and more recent investigations. Overall, results support the effectiveness of CBT for the treatment of adolescent depression.
Authors: Gregory N Clarke; Mark Hornbrook; Frances Lynch; Michael Polen; John Gale; Elizabeth O'Connor; John R Seeley; Lynn Debar Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: John March; Susan Silva; Stephen Petrycki; John Curry; Karen Wells; John Fairbank; Barbara Burns; Marisa Domino; Steven McNulty; Benedetto Vitiello; Joanne Severe Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul Rohde; Gregory N Clarke; David E Mace; Jenel S Jorgensen; John R Seeley Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Glenda M MacQueen; Benicio N Frey; Zahinoor Ismail; Natalia Jaworska; Meir Steiner; Ryan J Van Lieshout; Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roumen V Milev; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Michael L Bloomquist; Alison Giovanelli; Anna Benton; Timothy F Piehler; Karina Quevedo; Joel Oberstar Journal: J Child Fam Stud Date: 2016-07-01