ReviewEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2026
Interpretation biases in child and youth depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive theories posit that interpretation biases (IBs), the tendency to interpret emotionally ambiguous information negatively, contribute to the development and maintenance of depression. While adult meta-analyses report a moderate association between IBs and depression, evidence in populations under 18 remains inconsistent. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) estimate the first overall cross-sectional effect size between IBs and child and youth depression and to summarize (2) longitudinal and (3) experimental findings from randomized controlled studies. Eligible studies included healthy and depressed participants (including comorbid conditions) younger than 18, assessed depression and IBs, and were published in English with full-text availability. A literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo and ProQuest Dissertations in March 2025 identified 30 eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool for randomized studies and an adapted Downs and Black checklist for non-randomized studies. Overall study quality was acceptable, albeit with variability (M = 67.75%, SD = 12.1). A random-effects meta-analysis of 22 cross-sectional effect sizes (N = 4763) yielded a moderate overall correlation (r = .34, 95%-CI = [.27; .42], p < .001), similar to adult findings when accounting for methodological differences. Limited longitudinal (4 studies, N = 616) and experimental evidence (3 studies, N = 239) highlight the need for further research. Included studies only examined participants aged above 7 with largely low depressive symptoms, limiting generalizability. Future research should therefore examine younger and more severely depressed populations and employ validated measures of IBs in children to better characterize developmental trajectories. Prospero Registration: ID CRD420250655580.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42789086What 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.