SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Efficacy of different psychological interventions for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Psychological adaptation and health-related quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease: a 5-year follow-up study.Research in psychotherapy (Milano) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: National guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) recommend psychotherapy, but the relative efficacy of different psychological interventions is unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the databases' inception to October 11, 2024. The primary outcomes were depression, anxiety, and stress levels, and the secondary outcomes were disease activity and quality of life. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data according to pre-specified criteria, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 and R. Comparators included usual care (UC), waiting list (WL), and head-to-head comparisons between psychological interventions. Results: Nineteen RCTs (1,637 participants) evaluating 12 interventions were included. Compared with WL, mindfulness interventions (MI) (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.05) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.17) reduced depression. Compared with WL, acceptance and commitment therapy with a compassion-focused group component (SMD -1.15, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.05), acceptance and commitment therapy (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.16), and CBT (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.09) reduced anxiety. For QoL, MI improved outcomes versus WL (SMD 2.21, 95% CI 0.25-4.12) and versus UC (SMD 1.82, 95% CI 0.53-3.10). No significant differences were detected for stress or disease activity versus WL or UC (where available). SUCRA rankings suggested that MI ranked highest for depression and QoL, compassion-focused ACT ranked highest for anxiety and disease activity, and CBT ranked highest for stress. Conclusion: Psychological interventions appear to provide adjunctive benefits for people with IBD. MI shows consistent advantages for depression and QoL; ACT (with or without a compassion-focused component) and CBT reduce anxiety; CBT ranks favorably for stress. Effects on disease activity remain uncertain, and further high-quality trials are warranted. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD4202460005.
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.