ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Patient-centered group psychotherapy for depression and negative emotions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Depressive disorders and negative emotions are a major global health challenge, affecting over 280 million people and worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Traditional treatments have limitations such as high relapse rates and accessibility issues. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of patient-centered group psychotherapy (PCGP) on depressive symptoms and functional outcomes, identify moderators, and provide recommendations. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, CNKI, and other databases through October 2024, including 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one Clinical study (total N = 1,989). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses via RevMan 5.4 calculated risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs), with heterogeneity evaluated via I² statistics. Results: Eligible participants comprised adults (≥18 years) with a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder (DSM-5/ICD-10 criteria) or clinically significant negative emotional symptoms (e.g., PHQ-9≥15), excluding those with primary non-depressive psychiatric comorbidities. Studies involving mixed populations were included only if subgroup data for depressed participants were extractable. PCGP showed significant positive effects on overall effectiveness (RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.19, p = 0.03), symptom reduction (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, SMD = -1.96, 95% CI: -2.31 to -1.61, p < 0.001), and functional outcomes (Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scores, SMD = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.41-2.51, p < 0.001). It also improved negative mood (SMD = -4.28, 95% CI: -8.03 to -0.52, p = 0.03) but with high heterogeneity (I² = 99.0%). A positive trend was noted for medication adherence (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.89-1.38, p = 0.35). Conclusion: PCGP is an effective first-line adjunct therapy for depression, particularly in resource-limited settings. It addresses both symptom reduction and functional recovery by combining personalized goal-setting with group dynamics.
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.