RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Psychological interventions for adult PTSD: A network and pairwise meta-analysis of short and long-term efficacy, acceptability and trial quality
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.05.03.22274616
DO 10.1101/2022.05.03.22274616
A1 Hoppen, Thole H.
A1 Jehn, Marvin
A1 Holling, Heinz
A1 Mutz, Julian
A1 Kip, Ahlke
A1 Morina, Nexhmedin
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/03/2022.05.03.22274616.abstract
AB While dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined psychological interventions for adult posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), no network meta-analysis has comprehensively integrated their results for all interventions and both short and long-term efficacy. We conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases to identify RCTs comparing the efficacy (standardized mean differences in PTSD severity, SMDs) and acceptability (relative risk of all-cause dropout, RR) of trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TF-CBT), Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), other trauma-focused psychological interventions (other-TF-PIs) and non-trauma-focused psychological interventions (non-TF-PIs) compared to each other or to passive or active control conditions. Hundred-fifty RCTs met inclusion criteria comprising 11,282, 4,443 and 3,167 patients at post-treatment assessment, ≤ 5 months follow-up and > 5 months follow-up, respectively. By far the most data exist for TF-CBT. We performed random effects network meta-analyses (efficacy) and pairwise meta-analyses (acceptability). All therapies produced large effects compared to passive control conditions (SMDs ≥ 0.80) at post-treatment. Compared to active control conditions, TF-CBT and EMDR were moderately more effective (SMDs ≥ 0.50 < 0.80), and other-TF-PIs and non-TF-PIs were slightly more effective (SMDs ≥ 0.20 < 0.50). Interventions did not differ in their short-term efficacy, yet TF-CBT was more effective than non-TF-PIs (SMD = 0.14). Results remained robust in sensitivity and outlier-adjusted analyses. Similar results were found for long-term efficacy. Interventions also did not differ in terms of their acceptability, except for TF-CBT being associated with a slightly increased risk of dropout compared to non-TF-PIs (RR=1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.70). Interventions with and without trauma focus appear effective and acceptable in the treatment of adult PTSD with most certainty for TF-CBT, which, however, appears somewhat less acceptable than non-TF-PIs.Competing Interest StatementJM receives studentship funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, ref: 2050702) and Eli Lilly and Company Limited.Funding StatementThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All data analysed were extracted from published journal articles.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data analysed were extracted from published journal articles. No new data were created. The datasets and the R scripts are available on request via e-mail to the first author.