The evidence for cognitive behavioural therapy in any condition, population or context: a meta-review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
meta-review
overview
panoramic meta-analysis
systematic reviews
Journal
Psychological medicine
ISSN: 1469-8978
Titre abrégé: Psychol Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 1254142
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
19
1
2021
medline:
20
11
2021
entrez:
18
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The majority of psychological treatment research is dedicated to investigating the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) across different conditions, population and contexts. We aimed to summarise the current systematic review evidence and evaluate the consistency of CBT's effect across different conditions. We included reviews of CBT randomised controlled trials in any: population, condition, format, context, with any type of comparator and published in English. We searched DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CDAS, and OpenGrey between 1992 and January 2019. Reviews were quality assessed, their data extracted and summarised. The effects upon health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled, within-condition groups. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I2 < 75%, we pooled effects using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. We summarised 494 reviews (221 128 participants), representing 14/20 physical and 13/20 mental conditions (World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases). Most reviews were lower-quality (351/494), investigated face-to-face CBT (397/494), and in adults (378/494). Few reviews included trials conducted in Asia, South America or Africa (45/494). CBT produced a modest benefit across-conditions on HRQoL (standardised mean difference 0.23; 95% confidence intervals 0.14-0.33, I2 = 32%). The effect's associated prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50 suggested CBT will remain effective in conditions for which we do not currently have available evidence. While there remain some gaps in the completeness of the evidence base, we need to recognise the consistent evidence for the general benefit which CBT offers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33455594
doi: 10.1017/S0033291720005292
pii: S0033291720005292
pmc: PMC7856415
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21-29Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HTA 15/174/24
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Front Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 29;9:4
pubmed: 29434552
BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 14;8(12):e025761
pubmed: 30552285
Psychol Med. 2019 Sep;49(12):1937-1947
pubmed: 31179960
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 07;8(10):e75132
pubmed: 24116028
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
Psychol Med. 2008 Mar;38(3):385-96
pubmed: 17922939
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD005537
pubmed: 18425922
Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-885
pubmed: 27993338
Cognit Ther Res. 2012 Oct 1;36(5):427-440
pubmed: 23459093
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 21;3:CD010673
pubmed: 28322440
Lancet. 1974 Nov 9;2(7889):1127-31
pubmed: 4139420