Are There Differences Among Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Treating Different DSM-5 PTSD Symptom Clusters? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1097/NMD.0000000000001769
Marina S Melani, Jéssica M Paiva, Mauro V Mendlowicz, Liliane Vilete, Mariana P Luz, Paula Rui Ventura, Roberta Benitez Freitas Passos, William Berger
{"title":"Are There Differences Among Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Treating Different DSM-5 PTSD Symptom Clusters? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials.","authors":"Marina S Melani, Jéssica M Paiva, Mauro V Mendlowicz, Liliane Vilete, Mariana P Luz, Paula Rui Ventura, Roberta Benitez Freitas Passos, William Berger","doi":"10.1097/NMD.0000000000001769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a heterogeneous disease defined by four Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) symptom clusters: reexperiencing, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and hyperarousal. There are effective evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD. However, given the variety of PTSD clinical presentations, we conducted the first meta-analysis investigating whether DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters show different responses to EBPs. We systematically reviewed the literature for controlled clinical trials in five databases, performed a meta-analysis, and evaluated the methodological quality of the studies. We screened 633 studies and included seven. Three showed high risk, two showed some concerns, and one showed a low risk of bias. The symptom clusters do not seem to respond differently to EBPs (SMD cluster B: -0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.87 to 0.08; cluster C: -0.49; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.08; cluster D: -0.44; 95% CI, -0.94 to 0.05; cluster E: -0.54; 95% CI, -1.07 to -0.0), even when analyzed by the therapeutic focuses. The findings dovetail nicely with the network theory of PTSD symptom, as although it is a heterogeneous disorder, the EBPs seem to promote a kind of cascade of symptom improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":16480,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease","volume":"212 6","pages":"332-343"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001769","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a heterogeneous disease defined by four Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) symptom clusters: reexperiencing, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and hyperarousal. There are effective evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD. However, given the variety of PTSD clinical presentations, we conducted the first meta-analysis investigating whether DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters show different responses to EBPs. We systematically reviewed the literature for controlled clinical trials in five databases, performed a meta-analysis, and evaluated the methodological quality of the studies. We screened 633 studies and included seven. Three showed high risk, two showed some concerns, and one showed a low risk of bias. The symptom clusters do not seem to respond differently to EBPs (SMD cluster B: -0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.87 to 0.08; cluster C: -0.49; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.08; cluster D: -0.44; 95% CI, -0.94 to 0.05; cluster E: -0.54; 95% CI, -1.07 to -0.0), even when analyzed by the therapeutic focuses. The findings dovetail nicely with the network theory of PTSD symptom, as although it is a heterogeneous disorder, the EBPs seem to promote a kind of cascade of symptom improvement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于证据的心理疗法在治疗不同的 DSM-5 PTSD 症状群方面存在差异吗?对照临床试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
摘要:创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)是一种异质性疾病,由《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)的四个症状群定义:再体验、回避、认知和情绪的负面改变以及过度虑惊。创伤后应激障碍有有效的循证心理疗法(EBPs)。然而,鉴于创伤后应激障碍的临床表现多种多样,我们首次进行了荟萃分析,研究 DSM-5 PTSD 症状群是否对 EBPs 表现出不同的反应。我们系统地查阅了五个数据库中的对照临床试验文献,进行了荟萃分析,并对研究的方法学质量进行了评估。我们筛选了 633 项研究,并纳入了 7 项研究。其中三项存在高风险,两项存在一些问题,一项存在低偏倚风险。即使按治疗重点进行分析,症状群组似乎对 EBPs 的反应也不尽相同(SMD 群组 B:-0.40;95% 置信区间 [CI],-0.87 至 0.08;群组 C:-0.49;95% CI,-0.90 至 -0.08;群组 D:-0.44;95% CI,-0.94 至 0.05;群组 E:-0.54;95% CI,-1.07 至 -0.0)。这些发现与创伤后应激障碍症状的网络理论非常吻合,因为尽管创伤后应激障碍是一种异质性疾病,但 EBPs 似乎促进了一种症状改善的连带效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
233
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease publishes peer-reviewed articles containing new data or ways of reorganizing established knowledge relevant to understanding and modifying human behavior, especially that defined as impaired or diseased, and the context, applications and effects of that knowledge. Our policy is summarized by the slogan, "Behavioral science for clinical practice." We consider articles that include at least one behavioral variable, clear definition of study populations, and replicable research designs. Authors should use the active voice and first person whenever possible.
期刊最新文献
Well-Being and Mental Health: Where Do We Stand After COVID-19 Pandemic? Symptoms Profile and Psychopathological Correlates of (Hypo)Manic and Depressive Symptoms in Saudis With Bipolar Disorder: Preliminary Evidence. The Role of Social Network on Social Isolation and Anxiety on Attentional Switching of Students. Use and Perceptions of Mobile Mental Health Applications Among Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Interpersonal Relationship and Suicide Attempt: The Role of Family and Social Relationship.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1