The Effects of Blinding on the Outcomes of Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy for Adult Depression: a Meta-Analysis

Author:

Cuijpers P.,Karyotaki E.,Andersson G.,Li J.,Mergl R.,Hegerl U.

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundRandomized trials with antidepressants are often run under double blind placebo-controlled conditions, whereas those with psychotherapies are mostly unblinded. This can introduce bias in favor of psychotherapy when the treatments are directly compared. In this meta-analysis, we examine this potential source of bias.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, PsycInfo, Embase and the Cochrane database (1966 to January 2014) by combining terms indicative of psychological treatment and depression, and limited to randomized trials. We included 35 trials (with 3721 patients) in which psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression were directly compared with each other. We calculated effect sizes for each study indicating the difference between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy at post-test. Then, we examined the difference between studies with a placebo condition and those without in moderator analyses.ResultsWe did not find a significant difference between the studies with and those without a placebo condition. The studies in which a placebo condition was included indicated no significant difference between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (g = −0.07; NNT = 25). Studies in which no placebo condition was included (and patients and clinicians in both conditions were not blinded), resulted in a small, but significant difference between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in favor of pharmacotherapy (g = −0.13; NNT = 14).ConclusionsStudies comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in which both groups of patients (and therapists) are not blinded (no placebo condition is included) result in a very small, but significantly higher effect for pharmacotherapy.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3