Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26993366›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based mental health2016

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for major depression: a reply to the REEACT trial.

Gavin Andrews, Megan J Hobbs, Jill M Newby

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gavin AndrewsClinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Megan J HobbsClinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jill M NewbyClinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT) has been shown to be an efficacious treatment for depression. A recent meta-analysis of 9 studies showed a large mean effect size superiority over control group (effect size=0.86, number needed to treat=2), good adherence (69%) and benefits were evident at follow-up at a median of 26 weeks. In contrast, REEACT, a major study which compared usual general practitioner (GP) care versus usual GP care plus access to 1 of 2 pioneering CCBT courses detected no differences between the groups. We present the results and discuss possible explanations for these findings. In all 3 groups, usual care was extensive (9 visits in 12 months, 80% on medication, 8-23% getting psychological sessions). Adherence to CCBT courses was very poor (17%). Perhaps the surfeit of services meant there was no need for CCBT. Perhaps neither of the 2 CCBT courses encouraged adherence. What is certain is that this study did not test the potential of these CCBT courses to produce change in patients with depression presenting in primary care.

Indexed as

Major Depressive DisorderTherapy, Computer-AssistedCognitive Behavioral TherapyDepressionHumansPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26993366
PMCPMC10699423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.