Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21838902›Full record

ReviewBMC psychiatry2011

Meta-review of the effectiveness of computerised CBT in treating depression.

Pooria Sarrami Foroushani, Justine Schneider, Neda Assareh

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC psychiatry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. The effects of SmartCareSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pooria Sarrami ForoushaniCLAHRC-NDL, The University of Nottingham, School of Community Health Sciences, Sir Colin Campbell Building, Jubilee campus, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK. pooria.sarrami@nottingham.ac.uk
Justine Schneider
Neda Assareh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) packages are now available to treat mild to moderate depression with or without anxiety. These have been usually been reviewed alongside cCBT for a wide range of psychological problems. Here, we single out the results of these reviews for the most common mental disorder, mild to moderate depression. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the quality of existing reviews and to enable reliable comparisons of alternative computer packages for the same patient group.

methodsA thorough search and analysis of reviews of efficacy of cCBT published between 1999 and February 2011.

resultsThe search yielded twelve systematic reviews from ten studies covering depression. Their methodology is appraised and selected findings are presented here.

conclusionsThe meta-review supports the efficacy of cCBT for treatment of depression; however there is limited information on different approaches, whose relative cost-effectiveness remains to be demonstrated. Suggestions are made for future studies in the field.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicAnxietyCognitive Behavioral TherapyDepressionHumansResearch DesignTherapy, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID21838902
PMCPMC3180363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.