强迫症心理治疗的有效性:对过去 30 年发表的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Psychological Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1017/S0033291724001375
Yingying Wang, Clara Miguel, Marketa Ciharova, Arpana Amarnath, Jingyuan Lin, Ruiying Zhao, Marieke B J Toffolo, Sascha Y Struijs, Leonore M de Wit, Pim Cuijpers
{"title":"强迫症心理治疗的有效性:对过去 30 年发表的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。","authors":"Yingying Wang, Clara Miguel, Marketa Ciharova, Arpana Amarnath, Jingyuan Lin, Ruiying Zhao, Marieke B J Toffolo, Sascha Y Struijs, Leonore M de Wit, Pim Cuijpers","doi":"10.1017/S0033291724001375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although numerous studies have examined the effects of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), their overall effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to estimate their overall effect by combining all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological treatments to control groups for OCD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis of 48 RCTs with 55 comparisons published between 1992 and 1 January 2023. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated at post-treatment and follow-up. Random-effects models were employed for all analyses, and the risk of bias was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In general, psychological treatments demonstrated a significantly large effect (<i>g</i> = -1.14; 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.97]; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 72.23%) on reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment, this finding remained consistent across measures and after excluding outliers, but lost significance in the sensitivity analysis for only studies with low risk of bias. Type of treatment, control group and treatment format were associated with treatment effects. Moreover, more severe baseline OCD symptom severity predicted higher degree of treatment efficacy. No significant differences were observed in dropout rates between the treatment and control groups. Treatment effects lost significance at 3-6 and 6-12 month follow-ups. 87% of RCTs were rated at high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Psychological treatments are effective in reducing OCD symptom severity. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the high heterogeneity and risk of bias across RCTs. Future studies with more rigorous methodology are required, as well as studies examining their long-term effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":20891,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published over last 30 years.\",\"authors\":\"Yingying Wang, Clara Miguel, Marketa Ciharova, Arpana Amarnath, Jingyuan Lin, Ruiying Zhao, Marieke B J Toffolo, Sascha Y Struijs, Leonore M de Wit, Pim Cuijpers\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0033291724001375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although numerous studies have examined the effects of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), their overall effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to estimate their overall effect by combining all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological treatments to control groups for OCD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis of 48 RCTs with 55 comparisons published between 1992 and 1 January 2023. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated at post-treatment and follow-up. Random-effects models were employed for all analyses, and the risk of bias was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In general, psychological treatments demonstrated a significantly large effect (<i>g</i> = -1.14; 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.97]; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 72.23%) on reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment, this finding remained consistent across measures and after excluding outliers, but lost significance in the sensitivity analysis for only studies with low risk of bias. Type of treatment, control group and treatment format were associated with treatment effects. Moreover, more severe baseline OCD symptom severity predicted higher degree of treatment efficacy. No significant differences were observed in dropout rates between the treatment and control groups. Treatment effects lost significance at 3-6 and 6-12 month follow-ups. 87% of RCTs were rated at high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Psychological treatments are effective in reducing OCD symptom severity. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the high heterogeneity and risk of bias across RCTs. Future studies with more rigorous methodology are required, as well as studies examining their long-term effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291724001375\",\"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":"Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291724001375","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:尽管有许多研究探讨了心理治疗对强迫症(OCD)的影响,但其总体效果仍不明确。我们的目的是通过合并所有可用的随机对照试验(RCT),对强迫症心理治疗与对照组进行比较,从而估算其总体效果:我们对 1992 年至 2023 年 1 月 1 日期间发表的 48 项随机对照试验进行了荟萃分析,共进行了 55 项比较。主要结果是强迫症症状严重程度,并计算了治疗后和随访时的赫奇斯'g。所有分析均采用随机效应模型,并对偏倚风险进行了评估:总体而言,心理治疗在降低治疗后强迫症症状严重程度方面具有显著的巨大效应(g = -1.14; 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.97];I2 = 72.23%),这一结果在不同的测量方法和排除异常值后保持一致,但在仅对偏倚风险较低的研究进行的敏感性分析中失去了意义。治疗类型、对照组和治疗形式与治疗效果有关。此外,基线强迫症状严重程度越高,预示着治疗效果越好。治疗组和对照组的辍学率无明显差异。治疗效果在3-6个月和6-12个月的随访中失去了显著性。87%的RCT被评为高偏倚风险:心理治疗可有效减轻强迫症症状的严重程度。结论:心理治疗可有效减轻强迫症症状的严重程度,但由于各研究项目之间存在较高的异质性和偏倚风险,因此在解释这些结果时应谨慎。未来的研究需要采用更严格的方法,并对其长期有效性进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The effectiveness of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published over last 30 years.

Background: Although numerous studies have examined the effects of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), their overall effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to estimate their overall effect by combining all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological treatments to control groups for OCD.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of 48 RCTs with 55 comparisons published between 1992 and 1 January 2023. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated at post-treatment and follow-up. Random-effects models were employed for all analyses, and the risk of bias was assessed.

Results: In general, psychological treatments demonstrated a significantly large effect (g = -1.14; 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.97]; I2 = 72.23%) on reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment, this finding remained consistent across measures and after excluding outliers, but lost significance in the sensitivity analysis for only studies with low risk of bias. Type of treatment, control group and treatment format were associated with treatment effects. Moreover, more severe baseline OCD symptom severity predicted higher degree of treatment efficacy. No significant differences were observed in dropout rates between the treatment and control groups. Treatment effects lost significance at 3-6 and 6-12 month follow-ups. 87% of RCTs were rated at high risk of bias.

Conclusions: Psychological treatments are effective in reducing OCD symptom severity. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the high heterogeneity and risk of bias across RCTs. Future studies with more rigorous methodology are required, as well as studies examining their long-term effectiveness.

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
Psychological Medicine
Psychological Medicine 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
711
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Now in its fifth decade of publication, Psychological Medicine is a leading international journal in the fields of psychiatry, related aspects of psychology and basic sciences. From 2014, there are 16 issues a year, each featuring original articles reporting key research being undertaken worldwide, together with shorter editorials by distinguished scholars and an important book review section. The journal''s success is clearly demonstrated by a consistently high impact factor.
期刊最新文献
Similarity and difference in large-scale functional network alternations between the behavioral addictions and substance use disorder: A comparative meta-analysis - CORRIGENDUM. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the severity of core symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in females and males. Comparative efficacy of interpersonal psychotherapy and antidepressant medication for adult depression: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Affective disorders: eliminate WArning signs And REstore functioning: AWARE. Results from a randomized controlled multimodular intervention study targeting functioning in patients with affective disorders. Alterations in inhibitory neuron subtype-selective transcripts in the prefrontal cortex: comparisons across schizophrenia and mood disorders.
×
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