创伤后应激障碍心理治疗无反应的发生率和预测因素:元分析

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Depression and Anxiety Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1155/2024/9899034
Verena Semmlinger, Cosima Leithner, Lea Maria Klöck, Lena Ranftl, Thomas Ehring, Monika Schreckenbach
{"title":"创伤后应激障碍心理治疗无反应的发生率和预测因素:元分析","authors":"Verena Semmlinger,&nbsp;Cosima Leithner,&nbsp;Lea Maria Klöck,&nbsp;Lena Ranftl,&nbsp;Thomas Ehring,&nbsp;Monika Schreckenbach","doi":"10.1155/2024/9899034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Background</i>. Although highly efficacious psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) exist, there is evidence that first-line psychological treatment approaches leave a substantial subgroup of patients still suffering from clinically relevant PTSD symptoms posttreatment. <i>Aims</i>. We aimed to meta-analytically establish the prevalence and predictors of nonresponse to first-line guideline-recommended psychological treatments for PTSD. <i>Materials and Methods</i>. This meta-analysis was preregistered (CRD42023368766). We searched the PTSD Trials Standardized Data Repository, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and PTSDpubs. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), reporting data on nonresponse operationalized by (lack of) symptom reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment of first-line guideline-recommended PTSD treatments for adult patients meeting criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. All studies published by October 10, 2023, were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We estimated the pooled average nonresponse rates and ORs. Subgroup and metaregression analyses targeting the nonresponse rates served to identify significant predictors. All analyses were conducted using three-level multilevel models. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane’s RoB 2 tool. <i>Results</i>. Eighty six studies with 117 active treatment conditions and 7,894 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted average nonresponse rate was 39.23%, 95% CI (35.08%, 43.53%). Nonresponse was less frequent in the treatment condition compared to the control condition (<i>OR</i> = 0.22). Subgroup analyses and metaregression revealed the type of analysis, population, type of intervention, treatment format, year of publication, age, sex, PTSD symptom severity, comorbid depression, and baseline depression score as significant predictors. The heterogeneity between studies was substantial to considerable (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 83.12%). Half of the studies had a high risk of bias. <i>Conclusions</i>. This meta-analysis found that a substantial subgroup of patients suffering from PTSD still showed clinically significant symptoms after having received treatment. Treatment modifications should be considered for specific subgroups of PTSD patients based on predictors found to be associated with nonresponse.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55179,"journal":{"name":"Depression and Anxiety","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/9899034","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence and Predictors of Nonresponse to Psychological Treatment for PTSD: A Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Verena Semmlinger,&nbsp;Cosima Leithner,&nbsp;Lea Maria Klöck,&nbsp;Lena Ranftl,&nbsp;Thomas Ehring,&nbsp;Monika Schreckenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/9899034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><i>Background</i>. Although highly efficacious psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) exist, there is evidence that first-line psychological treatment approaches leave a substantial subgroup of patients still suffering from clinically relevant PTSD symptoms posttreatment. <i>Aims</i>. We aimed to meta-analytically establish the prevalence and predictors of nonresponse to first-line guideline-recommended psychological treatments for PTSD. <i>Materials and Methods</i>. This meta-analysis was preregistered (CRD42023368766). We searched the PTSD Trials Standardized Data Repository, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and PTSDpubs. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), reporting data on nonresponse operationalized by (lack of) symptom reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment of first-line guideline-recommended PTSD treatments for adult patients meeting criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. All studies published by October 10, 2023, were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We estimated the pooled average nonresponse rates and ORs. Subgroup and metaregression analyses targeting the nonresponse rates served to identify significant predictors. All analyses were conducted using three-level multilevel models. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane’s RoB 2 tool. <i>Results</i>. Eighty six studies with 117 active treatment conditions and 7,894 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted average nonresponse rate was 39.23%, 95% CI (35.08%, 43.53%). Nonresponse was less frequent in the treatment condition compared to the control condition (<i>OR</i> = 0.22). Subgroup analyses and metaregression revealed the type of analysis, population, type of intervention, treatment format, year of publication, age, sex, PTSD symptom severity, comorbid depression, and baseline depression score as significant predictors. The heterogeneity between studies was substantial to considerable (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 83.12%). Half of the studies had a high risk of bias. <i>Conclusions</i>. This meta-analysis found that a substantial subgroup of patients suffering from PTSD still showed clinically significant symptoms after having received treatment. Treatment modifications should be considered for specific subgroups of PTSD patients based on predictors found to be associated with nonresponse.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Depression and Anxiety\",\"volume\":\"2024 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/9899034\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Depression and Anxiety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/9899034\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Depression and Anxiety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/9899034","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。尽管创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的心理治疗效果显著,但有证据表明,一线心理治疗方法会使相当一部分患者在治疗后仍有临床相关的创伤后应激障碍症状。研究目的我们旨在通过荟萃分析确定未对指南推荐的 PTSD 一线心理治疗做出反应的发生率和预测因素。材料与方法。本荟萃分析已预先注册(CRD42023368766)。我们检索了创伤后应激障碍试验标准化数据存储库、Embase、Medline、PsychINFO 和 PTSDpubs。我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验报告了符合创伤后应激障碍诊断标准的成年患者在接受一线指南推荐的创伤后应激障碍治疗后,创伤后应激障碍症状(缺乏)减轻的非反应性操作数据。所有在 2023 年 10 月 10 日之前发表的研究均被纳入。数据由两名独立审稿人提取。我们估算了汇总的平均无应答率和 ORs。针对无应答率的分组分析和元回归分析有助于确定重要的预测因素。所有分析均采用三级多层次模型。研究质量采用 Cochrane 的 RoB 2 工具进行评估。结果本次荟萃分析共纳入了 86 项研究,涉及 117 种有效治疗条件和 7894 名参与者。加权平均无应答率为 39.23%,95% CI (35.08%, 43.53%)。与对照组相比,治疗组的无应答率较低(OR = 0.22)。亚组分析和元回归显示,分析类型、人群、干预类型、治疗形式、发表年份、年龄、性别、创伤后应激障碍症状严重程度、合并抑郁和基线抑郁评分是重要的预测因素。研究之间的异质性很大(I2 = 83.12%)。半数研究存在较高的偏倚风险。结论这项荟萃分析发现,有相当一部分创伤后应激障碍患者在接受治疗后仍有明显的临床症状。应根据发现的与无应答相关的预测因素,考虑对特定亚组的创伤后应激障碍患者进行治疗调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Prevalence and Predictors of Nonresponse to Psychological Treatment for PTSD: A Meta-Analysis

Background. Although highly efficacious psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) exist, there is evidence that first-line psychological treatment approaches leave a substantial subgroup of patients still suffering from clinically relevant PTSD symptoms posttreatment. Aims. We aimed to meta-analytically establish the prevalence and predictors of nonresponse to first-line guideline-recommended psychological treatments for PTSD. Materials and Methods. This meta-analysis was preregistered (CRD42023368766). We searched the PTSD Trials Standardized Data Repository, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and PTSDpubs. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), reporting data on nonresponse operationalized by (lack of) symptom reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment of first-line guideline-recommended PTSD treatments for adult patients meeting criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. All studies published by October 10, 2023, were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. We estimated the pooled average nonresponse rates and ORs. Subgroup and metaregression analyses targeting the nonresponse rates served to identify significant predictors. All analyses were conducted using three-level multilevel models. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane’s RoB 2 tool. Results. Eighty six studies with 117 active treatment conditions and 7,894 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted average nonresponse rate was 39.23%, 95% CI (35.08%, 43.53%). Nonresponse was less frequent in the treatment condition compared to the control condition (OR = 0.22). Subgroup analyses and metaregression revealed the type of analysis, population, type of intervention, treatment format, year of publication, age, sex, PTSD symptom severity, comorbid depression, and baseline depression score as significant predictors. The heterogeneity between studies was substantial to considerable (I2 = 83.12%). Half of the studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusions. This meta-analysis found that a substantial subgroup of patients suffering from PTSD still showed clinically significant symptoms after having received treatment. Treatment modifications should be considered for specific subgroups of PTSD patients based on predictors found to be associated with nonresponse.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Depression and Anxiety
Depression and Anxiety 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
1.40%
发文量
81
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Depression and Anxiety is a scientific journal that focuses on the study of mood and anxiety disorders, as well as related phenomena in humans. The journal is dedicated to publishing high-quality research and review articles that contribute to the understanding and treatment of these conditions. The journal places a particular emphasis on articles that contribute to the clinical evaluation and care of individuals affected by mood and anxiety disorders. It prioritizes the publication of treatment-related research and review papers, as well as those that present novel findings that can directly impact clinical practice. The journal's goal is to advance the field by disseminating knowledge that can lead to better diagnosis, treatment, and management of these disorders, ultimately improving the quality of life for those who suffer from them.
期刊最新文献
A Longitudinal Correlational Study of Psychological Resilience, Depression Disorder, and Brain Functional–Structural Hybrid Connectome in Breast Cancer Associations of Changes in Alcohol Consumption on the Risk of Depression/Suicide Among Initial Nondrinkers Effectiveness of a Saffron and Withania Supplement on Mood in Women With Mild-to-Moderate Anxiety During the COVID-19 Lockdown Correlation Between Anxiety and Serum Thyroid Hormone Levels in Patients With Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Undergoing Microwave Ablation The Bridge Symptoms of Work–Family Conflict, Sleep Disorder, and Job Burnout: A Network Analysis
×
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