Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28706086›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Efficacy of home-based non-pharmacological interventions for treating depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Kanokporn Sukhato, Manote Lotrakul, Alan Dellow, Pichai Ittasakul, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 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. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Kanokporn SukhatoDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Manote LotrakulDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Alan DellowFaculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pichai IttasakulDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ammarin ThakkinstianSection for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thunyarat AnothaisintaweeDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review and compare the efficacy of all available home-based non-pharmacological treatments of depression.

designSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched since inceptions to 7 August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of home-based non-pharmacological interventions with usual care of patients with depression were included in the review. MAIN OUTCOMES: Depression symptom scores and disease remission rates at the end of treatment.

resultsSeventeen studies were included in the review. Home-based non-pharmacological interventions were categorised as (1) home-based psychological intervention, (2) home-based exercise intervention, (3) combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention and (4) complementary medicine. Complementary medicine approaches were excluded from the meta-analysis due to heterogeneity. The standardised mean differences of post-treatment depression symptom scores between usual care groups and home-based psychological intervention, home-based exercise intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention were âˆ'0.57 (95% CI âˆ'0.84 to âˆ'0.31), âˆ'1.03 (95% CI âˆ'2.89 to 0.82) and âˆ'0.78 (95% CI âˆ'1.09 to âˆ'0.47), respectively. These results suggest that only home-based psychological intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention could significantly decrease depression scores. Compared with usual care groups, the disease remission rate was also significantly higher for home-based psychological intervention (pooled risk ratio=1.53; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.98) and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention (pooled risk ratio=3.47; 95% CI 2.11 to 5.70). Of all the studied interventions, combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention had the highest probability of resulting in disease remission.

conclusionOur study confirms the efficacy of home-based psychological intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention in the treatment of depression. Combined home-based psychological intervention and exercise intervention was the best treatment and should be considered for inclusion in clinical guidelines for managing depression.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesDepressionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomedepressionhome-based interventionnetwork meta-analysissystematic reviewtreatment

Identifiers

PMID28706086
PMCPMC5734422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.