liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Does psychotherapy work? An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Ioannina, Greece.
University of Ioannina, Greece.
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Pain and Rehabilitation Center.
University of Ioannina, Greece; Imperial Coll London, England.
2017 (English)In: Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-690X, E-ISSN 1600-0447, Vol. 136, no 3, 236-246 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: To map and evaluate the evidence across meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies for various outcomes. Methods: We identified 173 eligible studies, including 247 meta-analyses that synthesized data from 5157 RCTs via a systematic search from inception to December 2016 in the PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We calculated summary effects using random-effects models, and we assessed between-study heterogeneity. We estimated whether large studies had significantly more conservative results compared to smaller studies (small-study effects) and whether the observed positive studies were more than expected by chance. Finally, we assessed the credibility of the evidence using several criteria. Results: One hundred and ninety-nine meta-analyses were significant at P-value amp;lt;= 0.05, and almost all (n = 196) favoured psychotherapy. Large and very large heterogeneity was observed in 130 meta-analyses. Evidence for small-study effects was found in 72 meta-analyses, while 95 had evidence of excess of significant findings. Only 16 (7%) provided convincing evidence that psychotherapy is effective. These pertained to cognitive behavioural therapy (n = 6), meditation therapy (n = 1), cognitive remediation (n = 1), counselling (n = 1) and mixed types of psychotherapies (n = 7). Conclusions: Although almost 80% meta-analyses reported a nominally statistically significant finding favouring psychotherapy, only a few meta-analyses provided convincing evidence without biases.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
WILEY , 2017. Vol. 136, no 3, 236-246 p.
Keyword [en]
psychotherapy; meta-analysis; treatment; randomized controlled trial
National Category
Neurology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-140042DOI: 10.1111/acps.12713ISI: 000407010600002PubMedID: 28240781OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-140042DiVA: diva2:1136619
Available from: 2017-08-28 Created: 2017-08-28 Last updated: 2017-08-28

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dragioti, ElenaGerdle, Björn
By organisation
Division of Community MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesPain and Rehabilitation Center
In the same journal
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Neurology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 39 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf