Does psychotherapy work? An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Volumn 136, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 236-246

  Dragioti, E ^a,b   Karathanos, V ^a   Gerdle, B ^b   Evangelou, E ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

meta analysis; psychotherapy; randomized controlled trial; treatment

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY; COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY; COUNSELING; HUMAN; MEDITATION; MENTAL DISEASE; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85013939857     PISSN: 0001690X     EISSN: 16000447     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12713     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Leichsenring F, Rabung S. Effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:1551–1565.
2. Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin Psychol Rev 2006;26:17–31.
3. Westen D, Morrison K. A multidimensional meta-analysis of treatments for depression, panic, and generalized anxiety disorder: an empirical examination of the status of empirically supported therapies. J Consult Clin Psychol 2001;69:875–899.
4. Wampold BE, Budge SL, Laska KM et al. Evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety versus treatment-as-usual: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons. Clin Psychol Rev 2011;31:1304–1312.
5. Wampold BE, Imel ZE, Ebooks Corporation. The great psychotherapy debate: the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work [text]. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015.
6. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, van Oppen P, Andersson G. Are psychological and pharmacologic interventions equally effective in the treatment of adult depressive disorders? A meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69:1675–1685; quiz 839–41.
7. Staines GL, Cleland CM. Bias in meta-analytic estimates of the absolute efficacy of psychotherapy. Rev Gen Psychol 2007;11:329–347.
8. Niemeyer H, Musch J, Pietrowsky R. Publication bias in meta-analyses of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression. J Consult Clin Psychol 2013;81:58–74.
9. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. Am Psychol 1993;48:1181–1209.
10. Dragioti E, Dimoliatis I, Evangelou E. Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: a systematic appraisal. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007206.
11. Cuijpers P, Smit F, Bohlmeijer E, Hollon SD, Andersson G. Efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy and other psychological treatments for adult depression: meta-analytic study of publication bias. Br J Psychiatry 2010;196:173–178.
12. Kuhberger A, Fritz A, Scherndl T. Publication bias in psychology: a diagnosis based on the correlation between effect size and sample size. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e105825.
13. Dragioti E, Dimoliatis I, Fountoulakis KN, Evangelou E. A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy. Ann Gen Psychiatry 2015;14:25.
14. Driessen E, Hollon SD, Bockting CL, Cuijpers P, Turner EH. Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health-funded trials. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0137864.
15. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000;19:1707–1728.
16. Evangelou E, Tsianos G, Ioannidis JP. Doctors’ versus patients’ global assessments of treatment effectiveness: empirical survey of diverse treatments in clinical trials. BMJ 2008;336:1287–1290.
17. Flint J, Cuijpers P, Horder J, Koole SL, Munafo MR. Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression? Psychol Med 2015;45:439–446.
18. Francis G, Tanzman J, Matthews WJ. Excess success for psychology articles in the journal science. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e114255.
19. Ioannidis JP. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 2008;19:640–648.
20. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clin Trials 2007;4:245–253.
21. Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES et al. Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol 2013;11:e1001609.
22. Tsilidis KK, Papatheodorou SI, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of excess statistical significance in meta-analyses of 98 biomarker associations with cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1867–1878.
23. Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Bias in associations of emerging biomarkers with cardiovascular disease. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:664–671.
24. Ioannidis JP. Excess significance bias in the literature on brain volume abnormalities. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011;68:773–780.
25. Kavvoura FK, McQueen MB, Khoury MJ, Tanzi RE, Bertram L, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of the potential excess of statistically significant findings in published genetic association studies: application to Alzheimer's disease. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:855–865.
26. van Beugen S, Ferwerda M, Hoeve D et al. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for patients with chronic somatic conditions: a meta-analytic review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e88.
27. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, 2001:285–321.
28. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011;342:d549.
29. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 2007;335:914–916.
30. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–634.
31. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002.
32. Lubin JH, Gail MH. On power and sample size for studying features of the relative odds of disease. Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:552–566.
33. Bellou V, Belbasis L, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Environmental risk factors and Parkinson's disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016;23:1–9.
34. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821–830.
35. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694–696.
36. Shiell A, Hawe P, Gold L. Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. BMJ 2008;336:1281–1283.
37. Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact generalmedical journals. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:1280–1291.
38. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006;333:597–600.
39. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;10:MR000035.
40. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:MR000006.
41. Bradley HA, Rucklidge JJ, Mulder RT. A systematic review of trial registration and selective outcome reporting in psychotherapy randomized controlled trials. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2016;135:65–77.
42. Masicampo EJ, Lalande DR. A peculiar prevalence of p values just below.05. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2012;65:2271–2279.
43. Fanelli D. “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e10068.