SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability of internet-based psychological interventions on depression in young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Effectiveness and Usability of Digital Slow Breathing and Detached Mindfulness Interventions in Late Adolescents: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundDepression represents a major global public health challenge, particularly among young individuals aged between 10 and 25. This age bracket is notably critical, as the onset of depression during these years tends to be more severe and consequential. In response to the growing demand for mental health services, internet-based psychological interventions have gained traction as a flexible and convenient alternative to traditional face-to-face treatment. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to rigorously assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of internet-based psychological interventions in addressing depression within the young population over the past three decades.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of seven electronic databases for eligible randomized controlled trials published from January 1995 to July 2024. The literature screening process adhered to the principles of population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. To evaluate the ranking probability of each intervention, we calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using RStudio and Stata software.
resultsThe NMA incorporated a total of 27 studies involving 3,451 participants. Among these studies, 18 assessed internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) interventions, whereas 12 employed a waitlist as a control group. At the end of the interventions, internet-based acceptance and commitment therapy (iACT), iCBT, internet-based dialectical behavior therapy (iDBT), and internet-based psychodynamic therapy (iPDT) all demonstrated statistically significant reductions in depression scores. Notably, no intervention measure was found to be statistically more acceptable than the others.
conclusionsOur NMA indicated that iDBT appeared to be more effective, whereas internet-based mindfulness-based therapy (iMBT) may be more acceptable. These findings offered preliminary evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of internet-based psychological interventions in treating depression among young people. However, the limited number of eligible studies underscored the importance and necessity of further research to evaluate novel intervention measures.
trial registrationThe study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), with the registration number CRD42024580958.
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.