Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36109583›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2022

A systematic review of digital and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy for depression.

Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic, Uma Rzayeva, Laura Völkel, Julian Wenzel, Johanna Weiske, Frank Jessen, Ulrich Reininghaus, Peter J Uhlhaas, Mario Alvarez-Jimenez, Joseph Kambeitz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Uma Rzayeva *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Laura VölkelDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Julian WenzelDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Johanna WeiskeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany.
Frank JessenDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ulrich ReininghausDepartment of Public Mental Health, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Peter J UhlhaasDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Mario Alvarez-JimenezCentre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Joseph KambeitzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. joseph.kambeitz@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8988-3959

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) represents one of the major treatment options for depressive disorders besides pharmacological interventions. While newly developed digital CBT approaches hold important advantages due to higher accessibility, their relative effectiveness compared to traditional CBT remains unclear. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all studies that conducted a CBT-based intervention (face-to-face or digital) in patients with major depression. Random-effects meta-analytic models of the standardized mean change using raw score standardization (SMCR) were computed. In 106 studies including n = 11854 patients face-to-face CBT shows superior clinical effectiveness compared to digital CBT when investigating depressive symptoms (p < 0.001, face-to-face CBT: SMCR = 1.97, 95%-CI: 1.74-2.13, digital CBT: SMCR = 1.20, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.32) and adherence (p = 0.014, face-to-face CBT: 82.4%, digital CBT: 72.9%). However, after accounting for differences between face-to-face and digital CBT studies, both approaches indicate similar effectiveness. Important variables with significant moderation effects include duration of the intervention, baseline severity, adherence and the level of human guidance in digital CBT interventions. After accounting for potential confounders our analysis indicates comparable effectiveness of face-to-face and digital CBT approaches. These findings underline the importance of moderators of clinical effects and provide a basis for the future personalization of CBT treatment in depression.

Identifiers

PMID36109583
PMCPMC9476400

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.