ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024
The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy for young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: One in six young adults presents with at least one mental health problem. However, so far, little attention has been directed to the mental health needs and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for young adults. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the type, quality and efficacy of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for young people. Method: We searched the PsycInfo, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify all the published randomized controlled trials (RCT), and naturalistic and observational studies of psychodynamic or psychoanalytic psychotherapies. We calculated the standardized mean difference in scores of psychodynamic interventions versus control conditions, adopting a random effects model (Hedges' Results: We identified 22 eligible studies, including 14 RCTs, and 8 naturalistic studies. Statistical analyses showed no significant difference between psychodynamic psychotherapy and other comparison treatments (psychotherapy or pharmacological interventions) for young adults (Hedges' Conclusion: Our systematic review highlights important clinical implications in identifying the efficacy of psychoanalytic interventions for specific at-risk groups and suggests developing prevention strategies for mental health problems in young adulthood across cultures and context.
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.