The Efficacy of Psychological Interventions for Child and Adolescent PTSD: A Network Meta-Analysis

Thole H. Hoppen, Lena Wessarges, Marvin Jehn, Julian Mutz, Ahlke Kip, Pascal Schlechter, Richard Meiser-Stedman, Nexhmedin Morina
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.09.24305537

Abstract

Importance Pediatric post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common and debilitating mental disorder. Yet, a comprehensive network meta-analysis examining the efficacy of psychological interventions is lacking.

Objective To synthesize all available evidence on psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD in a comprehensive network meta-analysis.

Data Sources PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PTSDpubs were searched from inception to January 2nd 2024 and 74 related systematic reviews were screened.

Study Selection Two independent raters screened publications for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) with ten or more patients per arm examining a psychological intervention for pediatric PTSD compared to a control group in children and adolescents (< 19 years) with full or subthreshold PTSD.

Data Extraction and Synthesis PRISMA guidelines were followed to synthesize and present evidence. Two independent raters extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane criteria. Random effects network meta-analyses were run.

Main Outcome and Measures Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) in PTSD severity.

Results In total, 70 RCTs (N = 5,528 patients) were included. Most RCTs (74%) examined trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy interventions (TF-CBTs). At treatment endpoint, TF-CBTs, EMDR, multi-disciplinary treatments (MDTs), and non-trauma-focused interventions (non-trauma-focused interventions) were all efficacious in reducing PTSD when compared to passive control conditions, with large pooled effects (gs ≥ 0.86, all ps < .001) in the random effects network meta-analysis. TF-CBTs produced the strongest short-term effects relative to both passive and active control conditions and across all sensitivity analyses. In a sensitivity analysis including only trials with parent involvement, TF-CBTs were significantly more efficacious in reducing PTSD than non-trauma-focused interventions (g = 0.35, p = .026). Results for mid-term (up to 5 months posttreatment) and long-term data (6-24 months posttreatment) were very similar.

Conclusions and Relevance The present network meta-analysis is the most comprehensive summary of psychological treatments for pediatric PTSD to this date. Results confirm that TF-CBTs can efficaciously reduce PTSD symptom severity in children and adolescents in the short-, mid-, and long-term. More long-term data are needed for EMDR, MDTs, and non-trauma-focused interventions. Results of TF-CBTs are encouraging and disseminating these results may help reduce common treatment barriers.

Question How efficacious are psychological treatments for pediatric PTSD?

Findings Trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapies (TF-CBTs) are currently the most evaluated treatment for pediatric PTSD (74% of included studies). Data for other interventions are emerging. At short-term, TF-CBTs, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), non-trauma-focused interventions, and multi-disciplinary treatments (MDTs) all significantly reduced pediatric PTSD relative to no treatment. TF-CBTs produced the strongest short- and long-term treatment effects. EMDR and MDTs had insufficient long-term data.

Meaning TF-CBTs should be the first-line treatment recommendation for pediatric PTSD. While data for other treatment approaches emerged with some promising findings, more data (including long-term data) are needed to draw firmer conclusions.

One to two-thirds of children and adolescents from the general population report exposure to at least one traumatic event in their lifetimes.1–4 While most children and adolescents react resiliently to trauma, about one-fifth develop post-traumatic stress disorder (i.e., pediatric PTSD).4,5 Pediatric PTSD is a common, impairing,4 and often chronic6 mental disorder characterized by vivid re-experiencing of trauma, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, changes in cognitions and emotions, and hyperarousal symptoms.7 Given the high prevalence and disease burden of pediatric PTSD,8–10 the examination and implementation of efficacious treatments constitutes a public health priority.

International treatment guidelines recommend cognitive behavior therapies with a trauma focus (TF-CBTs, e.g., TF-CBT11, prolonged exposure12, cognitive processing therapy13) as first-line treatment for pediatric PTSD.14–19 Research on other psychological interventions such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) or non-trauma-focused interventions is also emerging. In recent years, number of published RCTs has increased substantially. To inform clinical practice about the relative efficacy of all treatment approaches, a comprehensive network meta-analysis (NMA) is required.

NMAs integrate data from both direct (i.e., comparison of arms within a given RCT) and indirect comparisons (i.e., comparisons of arms across RCTs), which enables conclusions about relative effects of all interventions based on all data.20 Three NMAs of psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD have been published.21–23 However, four omissions in previous works need to be addressed. First, a comprehensive NMA is needed. Caro et al.23 only focused on pediatric PTSD relating to sexual abuse (rather than any trauma type). Mavranezouli et al.22 analyzed follow-up data only up to four months posttreatment and cannot discern long-term efficacy. Xiang et al.21 included data from 56 RCTs published until 2020, compared to 70 RCTs published until 2024 in the present work. Second, no previous NMA included a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias evidence. Low quality evidence may bias results in quantitative synthesis.24 Third, no NMA has performed sensitivity analyses concerning delivery format (e.g., individual delivery only or treatments with parent/caregiver involvement only) and efficacy may differ by delivery formats. Fourth, efficacy might also differ by age group (i.e., children vs. adolescents), and no NMA has yet performed an age-based sensitivity analysis. To enhance our understanding of relative treatment efficacy of interventions, the present work addresses these four omissions.

Methods

We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2015 guidelines.25 The systematic literature search, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by at least two authors. Disagreements were discussed between at least three authors (THH/LW/AK/NM). To address missing data, we sent data requests to corresponding authors, with a reminder one month later. The objectives and methods of the present NMA were pre-registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020206290). We defined the main research question (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study; PICOS) as follows: In children and adolescents with full or subthreshold PTSD (P), how do psychological interventions (I), compared to passive control conditions, active control conditions, or amongst different categories of interventions (C), perform in terms of lowering PTSD symptom severity (O) in randomized controlled trials (S)?

Identification and Selection of Studies

Search Strategy

For the timespan from inception to April 21st 2022, we relied on the literature search of our previous work26 including 57 eligible RCTs. We conducted a new search with identical search strategy on January 2nd 2024 covering literature published between April 21st 2022 and January 2nd 2024. Appendix A outlines the full search string. Briefly, we searched four large bibliometric health sciences databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PTSDpubs with various search terms for PTSD (ptsd OR ptss OR post-traumatic stress OR posttraumatic stress) and treatment (trial* OR treatment* OR intervention*) in all-field searches. Consistent with our previous search, no restrictions were applied to languages or publication formats. We also screened 74 recently published related systematic reviews (Appendix B) and the reference lists of included trials.

Eligibility Criteria

In line with our previous work,26 we included trials that met all of the following inclusion criteria: 1) RCT, 2) investigating the efficacy of a psychological intervention for pediatric PTSD compared to a control condition, 3) all participants had PTSD complaints (full or sub-threshold PTSD), 4) sample mean age < 19.0 years, and 5) outcome data reported for at least ten participants per arm.

Quality Assessment

Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors (THH/NM) based on eight dichotomous quality criteria reported by Cuijpers and colleagues.24 These eight criteria originated partly from the Cochrane Collaboration criteria27 and authoritative criteria for evidence-based psychological interventions.28 In the present study, RCTs were defined as high-quality trials (i.e., with low risk of bias) when fulfilling at least six of the eight quality criteria (for quality criteria and quality ratings per trial see Appendices C & D, respectively). Initial agreement between independent raters was good (91.35%).

Data Extraction

Trial characteristics (e.g., treatment delivery format), sample characteristics (e.g., mean age), and PTSD outcome data were extracted independently by at least two authors (THH/LW/AK/NM). When applicable, intent-to-treat (ITT) data were prioritized over completer data. When applicable, outcome data from clinician-based measures were prioritized over self-report-based data.

Categorization of Psychological Interventions and Control Conditions

The present study compared four categories of psychological interventions based on the number of trials available: 1) TF-CBTs (i.e., any CBT-based intervention with a trauma focus, such as TF-CBT,11 prolonged exposure,12 or cognitive processing therapy13), 2) EMDR, 3) non-trauma-focused interventions (i.e., any intervention without a trauma focus), and 4) multi-disciplinary treatments (MDTs, i.e., treatments that combine techniques from at least two of the aforementioned categories of interventions, such as intensive multimodal group program29). Other trauma-focused interventions (i.e., interventions with a trauma focus but neither belonging to TF-CBTs or EMDR, such as expressive supportive groups30) were planned as fifth category, but lacked evidence (kes < 4). In the present work, k denotes the number of RCTs, whereas kes denotes the number of direct comparisons, which differ due to multi-arm trials. Control conditions were divided into passive control conditions (e.g., wait-list control) and active control conditions (e.g., treatment-as-usual, for all categorizations see, Appendix E).

Categorization of Assessment Timepoints

To evaluate the short, mid, and long-term efficacy and consistent with previous research,31 we distinguished between three periods: 1) post-treatment (i.e., short-term), which we defined as assessments at treatment endpoint, 2) mid-term, which we defined as assessments of up to or equal to five months after the treatment endpoint, and 3) long-term, which we defined as assessments longer than five months after the treatment endpoint. When several assessments fell into the mid-term and long-term categories, the longest assessment was chosen.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of interest was the standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g)32 in PTSD symptom severity between comparator groups.

Statistical Analysis

Random effects NMAs were conducted given that high heterogeneity in outcomes was expected.32 Level of statistical significance was set to p-values below 0.05 (two-sided) for all analyses, including Egger’s test. Analyses were performed in R (version 4.1.1)33 with the netmeta package.34 Effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were first calculated at the study-level35 and then pooled and compared between all comparison dyads in NMA.32 Following Cohen,36 g was interpreted as small (0.20), medium (0.50), and large effect size (0.80). We only included intervention categories with minimally sufficient evidence base (i.e., kes ≥ 4)37 to ensure that effects were also estimated via a sufficient number of direct comparisons.38

For the transitivity assumption, we examined whether the distribution of various trial and sample characteristics was similar across comparison dyads and performed sensitivity analyses. We analyzed inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence38 globally (in the network) and locally (per comparison dyad)25,39 with the net splitting method40 and inspected net heat plots41. We performed inconsistency-corrected analyses when applicable. We calculated outlier-adjusted NMAs whenever (≥ 1) outliers were detected (i.e., ≥ 3.3 standard deviations above or below the pooled g)42. To examine the influence of small-study effects, we performed Egger’s test43 and inspected comparison-adjusted funnel plots44 (i.e., comparisons of interventions to passive and active control conditions only). We calculated the /2 and -r2 statistics as estimates of overall heterogeneity,45 and Qhet and Qinc as estimates of heterogeneity within and between comparison dyads.46 We also calculated surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA; 50,000 resamples), allowing for a ranking by efficacy. To visualize distribution of available evidence, we build network graphs. In addition to main NMAs (across all data), we performed four sensitivity NMAs: 1) only high-quality trials, 2) only trials delivering treatment(s) individually, 3) only trials involving parents/caregivers in treatment, and 4) only trials with sample mean age < 12 years (i.e., involving mainly children) as well as only trials with sample mean age ≥ 12 years (i.e., involving mainly adolescents).

Results

Study Selection Process

The new search wave covered 8,845 electronic records with ten additional eligible RCTs. Thus, a total of 70 independent RCTs were eligible for the present purposes. Figure 1 details the study synthesis process.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart depicting the study selection process

Study Characteristics

The 70 RCTs reported data of 5,528 participants (for trial characteristics and their references, see Appendices F & G, respectively). Apart from one dissertation,47 all RCTs were peer-reviewed. Only Dorsey et al.48 reported on more than one RCT (i.e., four RCTs). In total, 41 RCTs (59% of trials) delivered interventions individually and 29 RCTs (41% of trials) involved parents or primary caregivers in treatments. Across trials reporting this information, mean number of total sessions was 10 and total duration of treatments (i.e., total sessions times length) was on average 11 hours (SD = 6.5 hours). In total, 40 RCTs (57% of trials) assessed follow-up data (range = 1mo-24mo posttreatment). ITT PTSD data were reported in 44 RCTs (63% of trials). In total, 41 RCTs (59%) were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 29 RCTs (41%) in low and middle-income countries. However, two RCTs (conducted in the US and Germany) exclusively involved refugees originating from low-income countries.49,50 Across trials reporting this information (k = 52 or 74%), 90% of the participants met diagnostic criteria for PTSD at baseline. Fifty-seven trials (81%) involved mixed gender samples, whereas nine RCTs (13%) included only females and four RCTs (6%) only males. Across all trials, 60% of participants identified as females. Average age across trials was 12.21 years (SD = 3.08). In terms of trauma history, 31 RCTs (44%) included a sample with varying trauma histories. In the other trials, only participants with a particular trauma history were included, such as sexual assault (k = 10, 14%) or parental death (k = 6, 9%).

Network Meta-analyses of Short, Mid, and Long-term Efficacy

Assumptions

Assumptions were mostly met. Apart from two analyses, no inconsistencies were observed. In the main NMA on mid-term efficacy, significant inconsistency (i.e., between direct and indirect evidence) was found for MDTs and a corrected analysis (i.e., without MDTs) was performed. In the sensitivity NMA on mid-term efficacy of treatments with individual delivery only, significant inconsistencies were found for all interventions (precluding corrected re-analysis) and results are thus not reported. The distribution of sample and methodological characteristics across comparison dyads is presented in Appendix H.

Network Graphs

Figure 2 shows the network graphs for the NMAs on short-, mid-, and long-term efficacy. Most available trials assessed TF-CBTs. Only TF-CBTs had enough accumulated evidence to be analyzed across all three timepoints.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Network graphs for the main analyses concerning short-term (left), mid-term (middle), and long-term (right) efficacy

Network Meta-analysis of Short-term Efficacy

Table 1 provides all short-term results including sensitivity analyses. At treatment endpoint, all therapy categories – TF-CBTs, EMDR, MDTs, and non-trauma-focused interventions – were efficacious in treating pediatric PTSD compared to passive control conditions, with gs ranging from 0.86 for non-trauma-focused interventions to 1.06 for TF-CBTs (see Appendix I for the corresponding forest plot). Compared to active control conditions, only TF-CBTs (g = 0.55, p < .001) and MDTs (g = 0.43, p = .013) were efficacious (Appendix J). Differences in efficacy between treatment categories were not significant, with few or no direct comparisons for most comparison dyads. Heterogeneity in this main analysis of the short-term efficacy was large within and between comparison dyads (-r2 = 0.14, /2 = 68.9%; Qtotal = 196.06, df = 61, p < .001; Q et = 173.76, df = 50, p < .001; Qinc = 21.40, df = 11, p = .030). No significant inconsistencies were detected in the net splitting method (Appendices K & L). No evidence for small-study effects was found (Appendix M). Two outliers51,52 investigating TF-CBTs were detected. Outlier-adjusted analysis excluding these trials produced similar results (Appendix N).

View this table:
Table 1. Short-term efficacy of psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD

Sensitivity Analyses for Short-term Efficacy

In high-quality trials only, the results for comparisons to passive control conditions were similar, with effect sizes ranging from 0.80 for non-trauma-focused interventions to 1.05 for TF-CBTs. Only TF-CBTs (g = 0.53, p < .001) and EMDR (g = 0.43, p = .047) produced significant short-term effects compared to active control conditions. In the sensitivity analysis concerning trials with individual treatment delivery only, results were similar to the main analysis with most favorable outcomes for TF-CBT. In the sensitivity analysis concerning only trials with parent/caregiver involvement, results were also similar for the comparison to passive control conditions, with all categories with sufficient evidence for synthesis (TF-CBT, MDTs, & non-trauma-focused interventions) producing significant effects. Compared to active control conditions, however, only TF-CBTs (g = 0.42, p < .001) produced a significant effect. Moreover, TF-CBTs with parent/caregiver involvement were more efficacious than non-trauma-focused interventions with caregiver involvement (g = 0.35, p = .026). In the sensitivity analysis of samples with mean age < 12 (mostly children), results were very similar with all intervention categories with sufficient evidence (TF-CBTs, EMDR, & non-trauma-focused interventions) yielding significant reductions in PTSD compared with passive controls (gs ≥ 0.78). Yet, only TF-CBTs produced a significant effect compared to active controls (g = 0.55, p < .001). In the sensitivity analysis of samples with mean age ≥ 12 (mostly adolescents), results were also very similar with TF-CBTs, EMDR, and MDTs yielding significant reductions in PTSD compared with passive controls (gs ≥ 0.93). Only TF-CBTs (g = 0.53, p < .001) and MDTs (g = 0.46, p = .042) produced significant effects compared to active controls.

Network Meta-analyses of Mid and Long-term Efficacy

Table 2 provides all results. For non-trauma-focused interventions, too few direct comparisons were available. At mid-term (up to 5 months posttreatment), TF-CBTs, EMDR, and MDTs were efficacious compared to passive control conditions with gs ranging from 0.59 for MDTs to 0.95 for EMDR (Appendix O). Compared to active control conditions, only EMDR (g = 0.52, p = .032) and TF-CBTs (g = 0.45, p = .002) produced significant mid-term effects (Appendix P). Heterogeneity in this main analysis concerning mid-term efficacy was large within and between comparison dyads (-r2 = 0.15, /2 = 66.4%; Qtotal = 68.49, df = 23, p < .001; Q□et = 49.40, df = 16, p < .001; Qinc = 19.85, df = 7, p = .006). There was no evidence for small-study effects (Appendix Q). Significant inconsistency was detected for MDTs in the net splitting method (Appendices R & S). Results remained similar to those of the main analysis in a re-analysis excluding MDTs (Appendix T).

View this table:
Table 2. Mid-term efficacy (top) and long-term efficacy (bottom) of psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD

In the long-term (6-to-24 months posttreatment), only TF-CBTs and non-trauma-focused interventions had sufficient evidence for synthesis. Compared to passive control conditions, both TF-CBTs (g = 0.76, p = .002) and non-trauma-focused interventions (g = 0.71, p = .014) produced significant effects (Appendix U). Both TF-CBTs (g = 0.55, p < .001) and non-trauma-focused interventions (g = 0.50, p = .016) were also efficacious when compared to active control conditions (Appendix V). Heterogeneity in this main analysis concerning long-term efficacy was large within and between comparison dyads (-r2 = 0.11, /2 = 67.6%; Qtotal = 46.30, df = 15, p < .001; Q□et = 32.33, df = 10, p < .001; Qinc = 14.02, df = 5, p = .016). No inconsistencies (Appendices W & X) and no evidence for small-study effects (Appendix Y) were found.

Sensitivity Analyses for Mid- and Long-term Efficacy

At mid-term, sensitivity analysis on high-quality trials could be conducted with TF-CBTs and EMDR only. EMDR (g = 1.15, p < .001) and TF-CBTs (g = 1.06, p < .001) produced large treatment effects compared to passive control conditions. Compared to active control conditions, however, only TF-CBTs (g = 0.33, p = .029) produced a significant treatment effect. The sensitivity analysis concerning trials with individual treatment delivery only was infeasible given detected inconsistency for all interventions. The sensitivity analysis of trials with parent/caregiver involvement produced similar results to the main analysis. Yet, TF-CBTs were found more efficacious than MDTs (g = 0.67, p = .042). The sensitivity analysis of trials with mean age below 12 was infeasible due to lacking evidence. The sensitivity analysis of trials with mean age ≥ 12 (mainly adolescents) produced similar results to the main analysis. TF-CBT (g = 0.76, p < .001) and MDTs (g = 0.70, p = .034) both produced significant effects relative to passive controls. Yet, only TF-CBT (g = 0.54, p < .001) was found significantly superior to active controls.

At long-term, only TF-CBTs and non-trauma-focused interventions had sufficient accumulated data. Passive control conditions were also lacking. Compared to active control conditions in high-quality trials, only TF-CBTs produced a significant moderate-sized treatment effect (g = 0.53, p < .001). Sensitivity analysis concerning trials with individual treatment delivery only produced similar results to the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis concerning trials with parent/caregiver involvement was infeasible due to lacking long-term evidence (kes < 4). The sensitivity analysis of trials with mean age ≥ 12 was infeasible due to lacking evidence. The sensitivity analysis of trials with mean age < 12 (mainly involving children) produced similar results to the main analysis, with only TF-CBT (but not non-trauma-focused interventions) producing significant effects compared to active control conditions (g = 0.54, p = .003).

Ranking of Efficacy

Table 3 shows SUCRA rankings. TF-CBTs were the highest ranking category of interventions at all timepoints and all analyses, except at mid-term when it was second to EMDR.

View this table:
Table 3. Efficacy rankings of psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD

Discussion

The present work synthesized data from 70 RCTs in a comprehensive NMA. TF-CBTs are currently the most evaluated and the most efficacious category of treatments for PTSD in children and adolescents, followed by (in this order) EMDR, MDTs, and non-trauma-focused interventions. This supports recommendations of international treatment guidelines for pediatric PTSD, including the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies18 and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.17 Our review confirms and extends previous NMAs21–23 and pairwise meta-analyses.26,53,54 TF-CBTs were efficacious in treating pediatric PTSD relative to different comparators (passive and active control conditions), across time (short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up), and when restricting analyses to trials with high-quality, utilizing an individual delivered intervention, with parent involvement, and to samples involving mainly children or adolescents, respectively. These results are important for the training of therapist and treatment implementation in clinical practice and might help in reducing common treatment barriers.

Our review also reveals remaining gaps in the literature. While short and mid-term efficacy of EMDR was supported, our review highlights the lack of evidence concerning long-term follow-up data. The present results therefore support some international treatment guidelines17,19 that list EMDR as second-line treatment recommendation. Data for two other categories of interventions – MDTs and non-trauma-focused interventions – are emerging. More data (including long-term data), however, are needed to robustly investigate the (relative) efficacy of these two categories as well as EMDR. For the time being, only the efficacy of TF-CBTs can be robustly supported given that about three quarters of the available data concern TF-CBTs. There was some evidence for TF-CBTs producing significantly higher effects than non-trauma-focused interventions. Yet, more data is needed to draw firmer conclusions with regards to relative efficacy between categories of interventions.

Limitations

Five limitations should be noted. First, the categories of non-trauma-focused interventions, MDTs, and other trauma-focused interventions are heterogenous with regards to theoretical foundations of included interventions. However, there is no solid ground for further sub-categorization given the low number of available RCTs. As more RCTs accumulate, more homogenous categorizations will become feasible. Second, we found evidence for inconsistency in the NMA regarding mid-term efficacy data. However, results remained similar in a consistency-corrected re-analysis. Third, our age group sensitivity analyses provide approximate estimations of treatment effects for children and adolescents, as the categorization was based on sample mean age. An individual patient data meta-analysis would allow for a solid differentiation of effects for children and adolescents, which was beyond the scope of the present work. Fourth, while the distinction between passive and active control conditions is a strength of the present work, active control condition such as treatment-as-usual can comprise very different elements, depending on the context. Future research might be able to disentangle this heterogenous comparator group in a more fine-grained way. Fifth, relatively low rates of reported ITT data are concerning and trialists are encouraged to report ITT data (including ITT means and SDs) in future trials.

Conclusions

There is robust evidence that pediatric PTSD can be effectively treated by psychological treatments, in particular TF-CBTs. A large evidence base for TF-CBTs supports efficacy at short, mid, and long-term, relative to both passive and active control conditions and in high-quality trials. A comparably thin evidence base also supports the short and mid-term efficacy of EMDR and to a lesser extent MDTs and non-trauma-focused interventions. More high-quality trials including long-term assessments of PTSD are needed.

Statements

Author Contributions

THH, NM, LW, AK, MJ, and JM had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: THH and NM.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: THH and RM.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: THH, MJ, LW, JM.

Obtained funding: Not applicable (no funding).

Administrative, technical, or material support: THH.

Supervision: THH and NM.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

THH, MJ, LW, AK, PS and NM declare no competing interests. JM is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. RM occasionally receives payment (from universities and private training providers) for training therapists in the delivery of cognitive therapy for PTSD for children and adolescents; is a co-investigator or chief investigator on four National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)-funded or Medical Research Council-funded clinical trials of psychological therapies, particularly cognitive therapy for PTSD in children and young people; and was the chair of a steering committee for a trial addressing the online treatment of PTSD in adults. RM institution (University of East Anglia) has received payment through the following research grants: “Addressing the trauma-related distress of young people in care: a randomised feasibility trial across social-care and mental health services” (NIHR RfPB NIHR200586); “Internet-delivered Cognitive Therapy (iCT) for young people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” (MRC DPFS MR/P017355/1); “Supporting services to deliver trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for care-experienced young people: a pilot implementation study”, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West; “Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in youth exposed to multiple traumatic stressors: a phase II randomised controlled trial” (NIHR CDF-2015-08-073). RM institution part owns the intellectual property for an online guided self-help version of cognitive therapy for PTSD for children and young people as a result of RM involvement in one of these trials.

Funding/Support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Role of Funder/Sponsor

Not applicable.

Data Sharing Statement

The datasets and the R script are available on request via email to Dr. Thole H. Hoppen (thoppen{at}uni-muenster.de).

Additional Contributions

We thank the authors of the included studies for their work and for responding to data request emails and the provision of data.

Footnotes

  • The following changes have been conducted: - The sensitivity analysis concerning multiple trauma trials (i.e., >= 50% of sample with two or more traumatic experiences) was removed. - A sensitivity analysis concerning samples with mean age below 12 years (involving mainly children) was added. - A sensitivity analysis concerning samples with mean age 12 years and older (involving mainly adolescents) was added. - A new search wave was added (literature between 04.2023 and 01.2024). Thus, the literature search now covers the timespan from inception to 01.2024. The literature search yielded a total of 70 independent RCTs. The manuscript (e.g., PRISMA flow chart) has been updated accordingly. - The discussion has been extended to include more nuanced conclusions (as well as results of added sensitivity analyses) and more limitations (and what to do about those in future research).

References

  1. 1.↵
    Copeland WE, Keeler G, Angold A, Costello EJ. Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress in childhood. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(5):577–584.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Saunders BE, Adams ZW. Epidemiology of traumatic experiences in childhood. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin. 2014;23(2):167–184.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.
    Danese A, Smith P, Chitsabesan P, Dubicka B. Child and adolescent mental health amidst emergencies and disasters. Br J Psychiatry. 2020;216(3):159–162.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Lewis SJ, Arseneault L, Caspi A, et al. The epidemiology of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder in a representative cohort of young people in England and Wales. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(3):247–256.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Alisic E, Zalta AK, van Wesel F, et al. Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed children and adolescents: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;204(5):335–340. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.131227.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Widom CS. Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(8):1223–1229.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5. ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
  8. 8.↵
    Gilbert R, Widom CS, Browne K, Fergusson D, Webb E, Janson S. Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. Lancet. 2009;373(9657):68–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.
    Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Crozier J, Kaplow J. A 12-year prospective study of the long-term effects of early child physical maltreatment on psychological, behavioral, and academic problems in adolescence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(8):824–830.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Guiney H, Caspi A, Ambler A, et al. Childhood sexual abuse and pervasive problems across multiple life domains: Findings from a five-decade study. Dev Psychopathol. 2024;36(1):219–235.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Cohen JA, Deblinger E, Mannarino AP, Steer RA. A multisite, randomized controlled trial for children with sexual abuse–related PTSD symptoms. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004;43(4):393–402.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Foa EB, McLean CP, Capaldi S, Rosenfield D. Prolonged exposure vs supportive counseling for sexual abuse-related PTSD in adolescent girls: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(24):2650–2657.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Rosner R, Rimane E, Frick U, et al. Effect of developmentally adapted cognitive processing therapy for youth with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder after childhood sexual and physical abuse: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(5):484–491.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Bandelow B, Allgulander C, Baldwin DS, et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for treatment of anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and posttraumatic stress disorders – Version 3. Part II: OCD and PTSD. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2023;24(2):118–134. doi:10.1080/15622975.2022.2086296.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.
    World Health Organization. Guidelines on mental health promotive and preventive interventions for adolescents: helping adolescents thrive. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
  16. 16.
    Cohen JA, Issues, The Work Group On Quality, AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(4):414–430.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Post-traumatic stress disorder (NICE guideline NG116): [B] Evidence reviews for psychological, psychosocial and other non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of PTSD in children and young people. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng116/resources/posttraumatic-stress-disorder-pdf-66141601777861.
  18. 18.↵
    Bisson JI, Berliner L, Cloitre M, et al. The international society for traumatic stress studies new guidelines for the prevention and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: Methodology and development process. J Trauma Stress. 2019;32(4):475–483.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Phelps AJ, Lethbridge R, Brennan S, et al. Australian guidelines for the prevention and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: Updates in the third edition. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2022;56(3):230–247.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Cipriani A, Higgins JPT, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(2):130–137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Xiang Y, Cipriani A, Teng T, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Ment Health. 2021;24(4):153–160.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Mavranezouli I, Megnin[Viggars O, Daly C, et al. Research Review: Psychological and psychosocial treatments for children and young people with post[traumatic stress disorder: a network meta[analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;61(1):18–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Caro P, Turner W, Caldwell DM, Macdonald G. Comparative effectiveness of psychological interventions for treating the psychological consequences of sexual abuse in children and adolescents: a network meta[analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;(6):CD013361.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Bohlmeijer E, Hollon SD, Andersson G. The effects of psychotherapy for adult depression are overestimated: a meta-analysis of study quality and effect size. Psychol Med. 2010;40(2):211–223. doi:10.1017/S0033291709006114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–784.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Hoppen TH, Meiser-Stedman R, Jensen TK, Birkeland MS, Morina N. Efficacy of psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents exposed to single versus multiple traumas: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Psychiatry. 2023;222(5):196–203.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Repr. with corr. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. Cochrane book series.
  28. 28.↵
    Chambless DL, Hollon SD. Defining empirically supported therapies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66(1):7–18. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.66.1.7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Roque-Lopez S, Llanez-Anaya E, Álvarez-López MJ, et al. Mental health benefits of a 1- week intensive multimodal group program for adolescents with multiple adverse childhood experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2021;122:105349.
  30. 30.↵
    Shechtman Z, Mor M. Groups for children and adolescents with trauma-related symptoms: Outcomes and processes. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. 2010;60(2):221–244.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Hoppen TH, Jehn M, Holling H, Mutz J, Kip A, Morina N. The efficacy and acceptability of psychological interventions for adult PTSD: A network and pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2023;91(8):445–461.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
  33. 33.↵
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
  34. 34.↵
    Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Nikolakopoulou A, et al. netmeta: An r package for network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. J Stat Soft. 2023;106(2):1–40.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. [Nachdr.]. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publ; 2009. Applied social research methods series; 49.
  36. 36.↵
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis; 2013. http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1192162.
  37. 37.↵
    Hoppen TH, Meiser-Stedman R, Kip A, Birkeland MS, Morina N. The efficacy of psychological interventions for adult post-traumatic stress disorder following exposure to single versus multiple traumatic events: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Psychiatry. 2024;11(2):112–122.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Donegan S, Williamson P, D’Alessandro U, Tudur Smith C. Assessing key assumptions of network meta[analysis: a review of methods. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(4):291–323.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Netmeta: Network meta-analysis using frequentist methods; 2021.
  40. 40.↵
    Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7-8):932–944.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Krahn U, Binder H, König J. A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13(1):1–18.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6. ed., internat. ed. Boston, Mass.: Pearson; 2013. Always learning.
  43. 43.↵
    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta[analysis to evaluate the existence of small[study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):161–176.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986;7:177–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10(1):101–129.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    Schauer E. Trauma treatment for children in war: Build-up of an evidence-based large-scale mental health intervention in north-eastern Sri Lanka. University of Konstanz.
  48. 48.↵
    Dorsey S, Lucid L, Martin P, et al. Effectiveness of task-shifted trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for children who experienced parental death and posttraumatic stress in Kenya and Tanzania: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(5):464–473.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Schottelkorb AA, Doumas DM, Garcia R. Treatment for childhood refugee trauma: A randomized, controlled trial. International Journal of Play Therapy. 2012;21(2):57–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    Ruf M, Schauer M, Neuner F, Catani C, Schauer E, Elbert T. Narrative exposure therapy for 7[to 16[year[olds: A randomized controlled trial with traumatized refugee children. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2010;23(4):437–445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    McMullen J, O’callaghan P, Shannon C, Black A, Eakin J. Group trauma[focused cognitive[behavioural therapy with former child soldiers and other war[affected boys in the DR Congo: A randomised controlled trial. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(11):1231–1241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Barron I, Freitas F, Bosch CA. Pilot randomized control trial: Efficacy of a group-based psychosocial program for youth with PTSD in the Brazilian favelas. J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2021;14(3):335–345.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Bastien RJ-B, Jongsma HE, Kabadayi M, Billings J. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder in children, adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2020;50(10):1598–1612.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Hoppen TH, Morina N. Is high-quality of trials associated with lower treatment efficacy? A meta-analysis on the association between study quality and effect sizes of psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD. Clin Psychol Rev. 2020;78:101855. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101855.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted August 22, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email
The Efficacy of Psychological Interventions for Child and Adolescent PTSD: A Network Meta-Analysis
Thole H. Hoppen, Lena Wessarges, Marvin Jehn, Julian Mutz, Ahlke Kip, Pascal Schlechter, Richard Meiser-Stedman, Nexhmedin Morina
medRxiv 2024.04.09.24305537; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.09.24305537
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area