ArticleBMJ open2022
Exploring the efficacy of psychological treatments for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis.BMJ mental health · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the past four decades, over 700 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 80 meta-analyses have examined the efficacy of psychological treatments for depression. Overwhelming evidence suggests that all types of psychological treatments are effective. Yet, many aspects are still unexplored. Meta-analysts could perform hundreds of potential meta-analyses with the current literature, and a comprehensive bird's-eye view of all published studies is missing. This protocol outlines how a multiverse meta-analysis can evaluate the entire body of the literature on psychological treatments of depression in a single analysis. Thereby, gaps of evidence and areas of robustness are highlighted. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct systematic literature searches in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up until 1 January 2021. We will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment with a control condition. We will include studies published in English, German, Spanish or Dutch, and exclude trials on maintenance and relapse prevention as well as dissertations. Two independent researchers will check all records. All self-reported and clinician-rated instruments measuring depression are included. We will extract information on recruitment settings, target groups, age groups, comorbidity, intervention formats, psychotherapy types, number of sessions, control conditions and country. Two independent researchers will assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. As part of the multiverse meta-analysis, unweighted, fixed effect and random effects models will be calculated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As we will not collect any primary data, an ethical approval of this protocol is not required. We will publish the results in a peer-review journal and present them at international conferences. We will follow open science practices and provide our code and data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.