OBJECTIVE: Various control conditions have been employed in psychotherapy trials, but there is growing suspicion that they may lead to different effect size estimates. The present study aims to examine the differences among control conditions including waiting list (WL), no treatment (NT) and psychological placebo (PP). METHOD: We comprehensively searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cognitive-behaviour therapies (CBT) against various control conditions in the acute phase treatment of depression, and applied network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine all direct and indirect comparisons among the treatment and control arms. RESULTS: We identified 49 RCTs (2730 participants) comparing WL, NT, PP and CBT. This network of evidence was consistent, and the effect size estimates for CBT were substantively different depending on the control condition. The odds ratio of response for NT over WL was statistically significant at 2.9 (95% CI: 1.3-5.7). However, the quality of evidence, including publication bias, was less than ideal and none of the preplanned sensitivity analyses limiting to high-quality studies could be conducted, while findings of significant differences did not persist in post hoc sensitivity analyses trying to adjust for publication bias. CONCLUSION: There may be important differences in control conditions currently used in psychotherapy trials.
OBJECTIVE: Various control conditions have been employed in psychotherapy trials, but there is growing suspicion that they may lead to different effect size estimates. The present study aims to examine the differences among control conditions including waiting list (WL), no treatment (NT) and psychological placebo (PP). METHOD: We comprehensively searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cognitive-behaviour therapies (CBT) against various control conditions in the acute phase treatment of depression, and applied network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine all direct and indirect comparisons among the treatment and control arms. RESULTS: We identified 49 RCTs (2730 participants) comparing WL, NT, PP and CBT. This network of evidence was consistent, and the effect size estimates for CBT were substantively different depending on the control condition. The odds ratio of response for NT over WL was statistically significant at 2.9 (95% CI: 1.3-5.7). However, the quality of evidence, including publication bias, was less than ideal and none of the preplanned sensitivity analyses limiting to high-quality studies could be conducted, while findings of significant differences did not persist in post hoc sensitivity analyses trying to adjust for publication bias. CONCLUSION: There may be important differences in control conditions currently used in psychotherapy trials.
Authors: Sian Cotton; Kristen M Kraemer; Richard W Sears; Jeffrey R Strawn; Rachel S Wasson; Nina McCune; Jeffrey Welge; Thomas J Blom; Michelle Durling; Melissa P Delbello Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Xinyu Zhou; Sarah E Hetrick; Pim Cuijpers; Bin Qin; Jürgen Barth; Craig J Whittington; David Cohen; Cinzia Del Giovane; Yiyun Liu; Kurt D Michael; Yuqing Zhang; John R Weisz; Peng Xie Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: T Munder; C Flückiger; F Leichsenring; A A Abbass; M J Hilsenroth; P Luyten; S Rabung; C Steinert; B E Wampold Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Bettina Sorger; Frank Scharnowski; David E J Linden; Michelle Hampson; Kymberly D Young Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Patricia Moreno-Peral; Sonia Conejo-Cerón; Maria Rubio-Valera; Anna Fernández; Desirée Navas-Campaña; Alberto Rodríguez-Morejón; Emma Motrico; Alina Rigabert; Juan de Dios Luna; Carlos Martín-Pérez; Antonina Rodríguez-Bayón; María Isabel Ballesta-Rodríguez; Juan Vicente Luciano; Juan Ángel Bellón Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.596