Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34599050›Full record

SynthesisEvidence-based mental health2021

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yajie Xiang, Andrea Cipriani, Teng Teng, Cinzia Del Giovane, Yuqing Zhang, John R Weisz, Xuemei Li, Pim Cuijpers, Xueer Liu, Jürgen Barth and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Evidence-based mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Carpe diem.Evidence-based mental health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

18 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Yajie XiangDepartment of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5179-8321
Teng TengNHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment on Brain Functional Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Cinzia Del GiovaneInstitute of Primary Health Care, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Yuqing ZhangDepartment of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
John R WeiszDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Xuemei LiDepartment of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5497-2743
Xueer LiuNHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment on Brain Functional Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jürgen BarthInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Yuanliang JiangDepartment of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
David CohenDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et Robotiques, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.
Li FanNHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment on Brain Functional Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Donna GilliesUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kang DuDepartment of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Arun V RavindranCampbell Family Mental Health Research Centre, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Xinyu ZhouDepartment of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China xiepeng@cqmu.edu.cn zhouxinyu@cqmu.edu.cn.
Peng XieNHC Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment on Brain Functional Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China xiepeng@cqmu.edu.cn zhouxinyu@cqmu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-0081-6048
The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNCentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CADalian Medical University · CNHarvard University · USOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBSorbonne Université · FRThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAvailable evidence on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents remains uncertain.

objectiveWe aimed to compare and rank the different types and formats of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents.

methodsWe searched eight databases and other international registers up to 31 December 2020. The pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses estimated pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ORs with random-effects model. Efficacy at post-treatment and follow-up, acceptability, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured.

findingsWe included 56 randomised controlled trials with 5327 patients comparing 14 different types of psychotherapies and 3 control conditions. For efficacy, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), behavioural therapy (BT), individual trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing, and group TF-CBT were significantly superior to all control conditions at post-treatment and follow-up (SMDs between -2.42 and -0.25). Moreover, CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT were more effective than supportive therapy (SMDs between -1.92 and -0.49). Results for depressive and anxiety symptoms were similar to the findings for the primary outcome. Most of the results were rated as 'moderate' to 'very low' in terms of confidence of evidence.

conclusionsCPT, BT and individual TF-CBT appear to be the best choices of psychotherapy for PTSD in young patients. Other types and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Clinicians should consider the importance of each outcome and the patients' preferences in real clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyStress Disorders, Post-TraumaticAdolescentBehavior TherapyChildHumansPsychotherapychild & adolescent psychiatry

Identifiers

PMID34599050
PMCPMC8543231
OpenAlexW3203185705

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.