SynthesisDepression and anxiety2026
Long-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Depression and anxiety, 2026. 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
This pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023490547) evaluated the effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) in reducing depressive symptoms using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and updated empirically supported treatment (EST) criteria. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through January 16, 2025. Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 1992 participants met inclusion criteria (LTPP ≥9 months, ≥30 sessions), encompassing varied populations, psychodynamic modalities, and comparator conditions. Effects were pooled using two- or three-level random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. At treatment completion, LTPP showed significant reductions in depressive symptoms compared to all comparators (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI [0.20, 0.47]) and to active treatments specifically (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [0.1, 0.45]). Effects were generally sustained at follow-up. Subgroup analyses revealed larger effects when LTPP was compared to active controls (SMD = 0.61), but with greater heterogeneity and very low certainty of evidence. GRADE assessments indicated high-certainty evidence for depressive symptom outcomes in the all-trials condition and moderate-certainty evidence in comparisons with active treatments. According to updated EST criteria, these findings support a Strong recommendation for LTPP in reducing depressive symptoms. However, limited evidence on functional outcomes, economic impact, and long-term maintenance precluded a Very Strong recommendation. Evidence from comparisons with active controls was of very-low certainty, supporting only a Weak recommendation. Risk of bias was a concern in most studies. Moderator analyses were prevented by small study numbers. Future individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to identify predictors of treatment response and to establish which subgroups of patients with depression are most suitable candidates for LTPP. Funding: Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.
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.