Search

Background\ud Post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and debilitating condition. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed with the aim to prevent or mitigate it. These interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability, given that not all individuals exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. There are different possible approaches to preventing PTSD; universal prevention is aimed at individuals at risk of developing PTSD on the basis of having been exposed to a traumatic event, irrespective of whether they are showing signs of psychological difficulties.\ud \ud Objectives\ud To assess the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of PTSD in adults exposed to a traumatic event.\ud \ud Search methods\ud We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 13 November 2020.\ud \ud Selection criteria\ud We included randomised clinical trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis\ud We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. In a random‐effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD).\ud \ud Main results\ud We included 13 studies which considered eight interventions (hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega‐3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare enteral formula, Oxepa enteral formula and 5‐hydroxytryptophan) and involved 2023 participants, with a single trial contributing 1244 participants. Eight studies enrolled participants from emergency departments or trauma centres or similar settings. Participants were exposed to a range of both intentional and unintentional traumatic events. Five studies considered participants in the context of intensive care units with traumatic events consisting of severe physical illness. Our concerns about risk of bias in the included studies were mostly due to high attrition and possible selective reporting. We could meta‐analyse data for two comparisons: hydrocortisone versus placebo, but limited to secondary outcomes; and propranolol versus placebo. No study compared hydrocortisone to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event.\ud \ud The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, serious inconsistency amongst the studies' results, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (SMD ‐0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.61 to 0.59; I2 = 83%; 3 studies, 86 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No study provided data on dropout rates due to side effects at three months post‐traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective than placebo in reducing the probability of experiencing PTSD at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92; 3 studies, 88 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability or quality of life. \ud \ud Only one study compared gabapentin to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event, with inconclusive evidence in terms of both PTSD severity and probability of experiencing PTSD, because of imprecision of the effect estimate, serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (very low‐certainty evidence). We found no data on dropout rates due to side effects, functional disability or quality of life.\ud \ud For the remaining comparisons, the available data are inconclusive or missing in terms of PTSD severity reduction and dropout rates due to adverse events. No study assessed functional disability.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions\ud This review provides uncertain evidence only regarding the use of hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega‐3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare formula, Oxepa formula, or 5‐hydroxytryptophan as universal PTSD prevention strategies. Future research might benefit from larger samples, better reporting of side effects and inclusion of quality of life and functioning measures.

Background The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increased in individuals with mental disorders. Much of the burden of disease falls on the populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objectives To assess the effects of pharmacological, behaviour change, and organisational interventions versus active and non-active comparators in the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes among people with mental illness in LMICs. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, as well as three international trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and checked the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Searches are current up to 20 February 2020. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological, behavioural or organisational interventions targeting the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in LMICs. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors working independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. Main results One hospital-based RCT with 150 participants (99 participants with schizophrenia) addressed our review's primary outcome of prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes onset. Low-certainty evidence from this study did not show a difference between atypical and typical antipsychotics in the development of diabetes at six weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 7.05) (among a total 99 participants with schizophrenia, 68 were in atypical and 31 were in typical antipsychotic groups; 55 participants without mental illness were not considered in the analysis). An additional 29 RCTs with 2481 participants assessed one or more of the review's secondary outcomes. All studies were conducted in hospital settings and reported on pharmacological interventions. One study, which we could not include in our meta-analysis, included an intervention with pharmacological and behaviour change components. We identified no studies of organisational interventions. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference between the use of atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.69; two studies with 144 participants), and fasting blood glucose levels (mean difference (MD) 0.05 lower, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.00; two studies with 211 participants). Participants who receive typical antipsychotics may have a lower body mass index (BMI) at follow-up than participants who receive atypical antipsychotics (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; two studies with 141 participants; moderate certainty of evidence), and may have lower total cholesterol levels eight weeks after starting treatment (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43; one study with 112 participants). There was moderate certainty evidence suggesting no difference between the use of metformin and placebo for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 16.35; three studies with 158 participants). There was moderate-to-high certainty evidence of no difference between metformin and placebo for fasting blood glucose levels (endpoint data: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; change from baseline data: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; five studies with 264 participants). There was high certainty evidence that BMI was lower for participants receiving metformin compared with those receiving a placebo (MD -1.37, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.70; five studies with 264 participants; high certainty of evidence). There was no difference between metformin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Low-certainty evidence from one study (48 participants) suggests there may be no difference between the use of melatonin and placebo for the outcome of drop-outs from care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.66). Fasting blood glucose is probably reduced more in participants treated with melatonin compared with placebo (endpoint data: MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.01; change from baseline data: MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.09; three studies with 202 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between melatonin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Very low-certainty evidence from one study (25 participants) suggests that drop-outs may be higher in participants treated with a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) compared with those receiving a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01). It is uncertain if there is no difference in fasting blood glucose levels between these groups (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.10; three studies with 141 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is no difference in BMI and depression between the TCA and SSRI antidepressant groups. Authors' conclusions Only one study reported data on our primary outcome of interest, providing low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in risk between atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcome of developing type 2 diabetes. We are therefore not able to draw conclusions on the prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with mental disorders in LMICs. For studies reporting on secondary outcomes, there was evidence of risk of bias in the results. There is a need for further studies with participants from LMICs with mental disorders, particularly on behaviour change and on organisational interventions targeting prevention of type 2 diabetes in these populations.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: (1) Primary objective: to examine effectiveness of psychotherapy in comparison with non-treatment, waiting-list control or treatment as usual in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents (2) Secondary objective: to examine adverse effects of psychotherapy in comparison with non-treatment, waiting-list control or treatment as usual in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents (3) To examine cost-effectiveness of structured psychotherapy in comparison with non-treatment, waiting-list control or treatment as usual in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows: To map the characteristics and methodological quality of existing systematic reviews and published review protocols on the promotion of mental health and prevention and treatment of common mental disorders among refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons. Characteristics of interest are: the type of systematic review (Cochrane, non‐Cochrane, meta‐analysis, narrative synthesis); population (refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, age, mental health diagnosis); setting (country of origin and study setting); types of studies (randomised controlled trials, other designs); types of interventions (promotion, prevention, treatment; CBT, other psychotherapy, transdiagnostic, medication); types of comparators (no treatment, placebo, waiting list, treatment as usual, other treatment); intervention provider (professional, lay health worker); review characteristics (number of included studies, review quality). Whereas an overview of systematic reviews, would normally seek to answer questions related to the effectiveness or efficacy results of studies included in the identified reviews, this overview will provide a description of the depth and breadth of the literature available and will not answer questions of effectiveness. Data on study characteristics are extracted to give an overview of systematic reviews, ongoing or published, on this topic. This review is part of a Cochrane Global Mental Health satellite project to identify priorities for Cochrane Reviews in global mental health. We will produce an evidence map, which will represent a lay summary of literature identified in the overview, which will provide a basis to engage with stakeholders within and outside of academia to prioritise Cochrane Reviews of mental health of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons. This will ensure that the Cochrane Global Mental Health Satellite takes forward research questions seen as a priority by stakeholders to promote a strong evidence base in global mental health.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants for the treatment of MDD in older people.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Our primary objective is to examine mental health and well‐being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training on recipients of the intervention. We have three secondary objectives: 1. To examine the effects of MHFA training on recipients of the trainees' intervention, in terms of their knowledge about mental health and attitudes towards mental health problems. 2. To examine the effects of MHFA training on trainees' knowledge about mental health, attitudes towards mental health problems, number of encounters with people with mental health problems, and their own mental health and well‐being. 3. To examine the effects on organisations, looking at measures of absenteeism and productivity at work.

Objective Various control conditions have been employed in psychotherapy trials, but there is growing suspicion that they may lead to different effect size estimates. The present study aims to examine the differences among control conditions including waiting list (WL), no treatment (NT) and psychological placebo (PP). Method We comprehensively searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cognitive-behaviour therapies (CBT) against various control conditions in the acute phase treatment of depression, and applied network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine all direct and indirect comparisons among the treatment and control arms. Results We identified 49 RCTs (2730 participants) comparing WL, NT, PP and CBT. This network of evidence was consistent, and the effect size estimates for CBT were substantively different depending on the control condition. The odds ratio of response for NT over WL was statistically significant at 2.9 (95% CI: 1.3–5.7). However, the quality of evidence, including publication bias, was less than ideal and none of the preplanned sensitivity analyses limiting to high-quality studies could be conducted, while findings of significant differences did not persist in post hoc sensitivity analyses trying to adjust for publication bias. Conclusion There may be important differences in control conditions currently used in psychotherapy trials.

BackgroundRoutine outcome monitoring of common mental health disorders (CMHDs), using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), has been promoted across primary care, psychological therapy and multidisciplinary mental health care settings, but is likely to be costly, given the high prevalence of CMHDs. There has been no systematic review of the use of PROMs in routine outcome monitoring of CMHDs across these three settings.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of routine measurement and feedback of the results of PROMs during the management of CMHDs in 1) improving the outcome of CMHDs; and 2) in changing the management of CMHDs.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis group specialised controlled trials register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References), the Oxford University PROMS Bibliography (2002-5), Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and International trial registries, initially to 30 May 2014, and updated to 18 May 2015.Selection criteriaWe selected cluster and individually randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with CMHDs aged 18 years and over, in which the results of PROMs were fed back to treating clinicians, or both clinicians and patients. We excluded RCTs in child andadolescent treatment settings, and those in which more than 10% of participants had diagnoses of eating disorders, psychoses, substance use disorders, learning disorders or dementia.Data collection and analysisAt least two authors independently identified eligible trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.We conducted meta-analysis across studies, pooling outcome measures which were sufficiently similar to each other to justify pooling.Main resultsWe included 17 studies involving 8787 participants: nine in multidisciplinary mental health care, six in psychological therapy settings, and two in primary care. Pooling of outcome data to provide a summary estimate of effect across studies was possible only for those studies using the compound Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) or Outcome Rating System (ORS) PROMs, which were all conducted in multidisciplinary mental health care or psychological therapy settings, because both primary care studies identified used single symptom outcome measures, which were not directly comparable to the OQ-45 or ORS.Meta-analysis of 12 studies including 3696 participants using these PROMs found no evidence of a difference in outcome in terms of symptoms, between feedback and no-feedback groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95%confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to 0.01; P value = 0.10). The evidence for this comparison was graded as low quality however, as all included studies were considered at high risk of bias, in most cases due to inadequate blinding of assessors and significant attrition at follow-up.Quality of life was reported in only two studies, social functioning in one, and costs in none. Information on adverse events (thoughts of self-harm or suicide) was collected in one study, but differences between arms were not reported.It was not possible to pool data on changes in drug treatment or referrals as only two studies reported these. Meta-analysis of seven studies including 2608 participants found no evidence of a difference in management of CMHDs between feedback and no-feedbackgroups, in terms of the number of treatment sessions received (mean difference (MD) -0.02 sessions, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.39; P value = 0.93). However, the evidence for this comparison was also graded as low quality.Authors’ conclusionsWe found insufficient evidence to support the use of routine outcome monitoring using PROMs in the treatment of CMHDs, in terms of improving patient outcomes or in improving management. The findings are subject to considerable uncertainty however, due to the high risk of bias in the large majority of trials meeting the inclusion criteria, which means further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. More research of better quality is therefore required,particularly in primary care where most CMHDs are treated.Future research should address issues of blinding of assessors and attrition, and measure a range of relevant symptom outcomes, as well as possible harmful effects of monitoring, health-related quality of life, social functioning, and costs. Studies should include peopletreated with drugs as well as psychological therapies, and should follow them up for longer than six months.

Background and objectives: Clinicians report difficulties using research in their practices. The aim of the study was to describe needs and preferences for a mental health clinical question-answering service designed to assist this process. Method: Multi-disciplinary clinicians participated in a focus group; users of the service supplied feedback. Results: Fifty-four clinicians received answers to 84 questions about mental health treatments. User ratings showed that the answers had multiple uses: informing health care (43), education (22), staff development (28) and research (12), and were considered useful, clear, relevant and helpful. Focus group participants appreciated critically appraised summaries of evidence and stressed the time-saving benefit of the service. Clinicians without a medical training were least confident in applying evidence. Attitudes to research were positive, but concern was expressed about its potential misuse for political purposes. This appeared to arise from an ambiguity around the term 'insufficient evidence', which participants felt is widely misinterpreted as 'evidence of no effect'. Conclusions: A highly valued, responsive service has been developed. A range of clinicians find critically appraised summaries of research useful. Education about the use of research may help clinicians to be more evidence based. © 2009 Health Libraries Group.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One emerging potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest differential effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, anti-depressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries over all years to May 2015. We searched the database CINAHL over all years of records to September 2013.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in the review if they: were a randomised controlled trial; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and failure to complete studies.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.MAIN RESULTS: We found 26 relevant studies: 25 studies involving a total of 1438 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment.For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation results in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to -0.52; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful (an SMD of 0.32 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.2 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6)). The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between the studies. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence), the confidence intervals include a significant increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs as well as a small possible decrease. Rates of remission and response, quality of life, and rates of failure to complete studies were also similar between groups, but confidence intervals are again wide.The evidence on which these results are based is very limited. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but we rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low. The number of studies and number of participants contributing to all analyses were low, and the majority of studies were small and judged to be at high risk of bias on several measures. Our analyses were also likely to be highly influenced by three large trials. Although we judge these trials to be at low risk of bias, they contribute 26.9% to 82% of data. Our effect size estimates are also imprecise. Funnel plot asymmetry and sensitivity analyses (using fixed-effect models, and only studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias, performance bias or attrition bias) also suggest a likely bias towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. There was substantial heterogeneity in analyses of our primary outcome of depressive symptomology. This heterogeneity was not explained by the presence or absence of comorbidities or by the presence or absence of adjunctive therapy.Only one study was available for the antidepressant comparison, involving 40 participants. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48)), rates of response to treatment or failure to complete. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.

There is evidence that the quality of controlled clinical trials affects the results that are obtained. A systematic approach to the assessment of quality is required for psychiatric research. This study set out to develop an instrument for the assessment of the quality of controlled trials of interventions for depressive and non-psychotic conditions. A pilot study led to the development of a scale containing 23 items covering a wide range of aspects of quality including objective formulation, design, presentation of results, analysis and quality of conclusions. Scoring criteria were devised and the scale was then subjected to reliability testing using a random sample of trials of treatment for depression and ‘neurosis’. The scale showed moderate inter-rater reliability and results were comparable to those obtained with shorter instruments. It was quick and easy to use. There were significant correlations between year of publication and overall quality score with later studies showing higher quality. The instrument developed here provides a systematic approach to the assessment of quality for use in critical appraisal of individual studies and meta-analysis. However, the scoring process should be used cautiously since inter-rater agreement was only moderate. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all psychodynamic therapies compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/attention placebo control conditions for acute depression.To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of different psychodynamic therapy models (drive/structural, relational and integrative analytic models) compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/attention placebo control conditions for acute depression.To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all psychodynamic therapies compared with different types of comparator (standard care, no treatment, waiting list, attention placebo) for acute depression.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all humanistic therapies compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression.To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of different humanistic therapy models (person-centred, gestalt, process-experiential, transactional analysis, existential and non-directive therapies) compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression.To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all humanistic therapies compared with different psychological therapy approaches (psychodynamic, behavioural, humanistic, integrative, cognitive-behavioural) for acute depression.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all integrative therapies compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/attention placebo control conditions for acute depression. To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of different integrative therapies (IPT, CAT, psychodynamic-interpersonal therapy, cognitive behavioural analysis system of psychotherapy and counselling) compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/attention placebo control conditions for acute depression. To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all integrative therapies compared with different types of comparator (standard care, no treatment, waiting list, attention placebo) for acute depression.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all CBT approaches compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of different CBT approaches (cognitive therapy, rational emotive behaviour therapy, problem-solving therapy, self-control therapy and Coping with Depression course) compared with all other psychological therapy approaches for acute depression. To examine the effectiveness and acceptability of all CBT approaches compared with different psychological therapy approaches (psychodynamic, behavioural, humanistic, integrative, third wave CBT) for acute depression.

BACKGROUND The efficacy of combining psychotherapy and benzodiazepines for panic disorder is unclear, despite widespread use. OBJECTIVES To examine the efficacy of the combination compared with either treatment alone. SEARCH STRATEGY Randomised trials comparing the combination of psychotherapy and benzodiazepine with either therapy alone for panic disorder were identified. The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Studies and References Registers were searched. References of relevant trials and other reviews were checked. Experts in the field were contacted. Additional unpublished data were sought from authors of the original trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Two authors independently checked the records retrieved by the searches to identify randomised trials comparing the combined therapy versus either of the monotherapies, among adults with panic disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently checked eligibility, assessed quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The primary outcome was "response" based on global judgement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from included trials. MAIN RESULTS Three trials met eligibility criteria. A 16-week behaviour therapy intervention was used in two trials, and a 12-week cognitive-behaviour therapy intervention in the third. Duration of follow-up varied, ranging from 0 to 12 months. Two trials (total 166 participants) provided data comparing combination with psychotherapy alone (both using behaviour therapy). No statistically significant differences were observed in response during the intervention (relative risk (RR) for combination 1.25, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.03, P = 0.35), at the end of the intervention (RR 0.78, 0.45 to 1.35, P = 0.37), or at the last follow-up time point, although the follow-up data suggested that the combination might be inferior to behaviour therapy alone (RR 0.62, 0.36 to 1.07, P = 0.08). One trial (77 participants) compared combination with a benzodiazepine alone. No differences were found in response during the intervention (RR 1.57, 0.83 to 2.98, P = 0.17). Although the combination appeared to be superior to the benzodiazepine alone at the end of treatment (RR 3.39, 1.03 to 11.21, P = 0.05) the finding was only borderline statistically significant, and no significant differences were observed at the 7-month follow-up (RR 2.31, 0.79 to 6.74, P = 0.12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The review established the paucity of high quality evidence investigating the efficacy of psychotherapy combined with benzodiazepines for panic disorder. Currently, there is inadequate evidence to assess the clinical effects of psychotherapy combined with benzodiazepines for patients who are diagnosed with panic disorder.

Background Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic anxiety disorder associated with significant morbidity, social impairment and lower quality of life. Psychological treatments are a frequently used approach for OCD. Objectives To perform a systematic review of randomised trials of psychological treatments for obsessive compulsive disorder in comparison with treatment as usual. Search methods We conducted an electronic search of CCDANCTR-Studies (31/10/2006), and other databases. We searched reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria Published and unpublished randomised trials of psychological treatments versus treatment as usual for adults with a diagnosis of OCD Data collection and analysis Two review authors worked independently throughout the selection of trials and data extraction. Findings were compared and disagreements were discussed with a third review author. Full data extraction, using a standardised data extraction sheet, was performed on all studies included in the review. Results were synthesised using Review Manager software. For dichotomous data, odds ratios were calculated. For continuous data, effect sizes were obtained and the standardised mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals, was calculated. Fixed and random effects models were used to pool the data. Reasons for heterogeneity in studies were explored and sensitivity analyses were performed by excluding trials of lower quality. Main results Eight studies (11 study comparisons) were identified, all of which compared cognitive and/or behavioural treatments versus treatment as usual control groups. Seven studies (ten comparisons) had usable data for meta-analyses. These studies demonstrated that patients receiving any variant of cognitive behavioural treatment exhibited significantly fewer symptoms post-treatment than those receiving treatment as usual (SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.61 to -0.87, I² test for heterogeneity 33.4%). Different types of cognitive and/or behavioural treatments showed similar differences in effect when compared with treatment as usual. The overall treatment effect appeared to be influenced by differences in baseline severity. Authors' conclusions The findings of this review suggest that psychological treatments derived from cognitive behavioural models are an effective treatment for adult patients with obsessive compulsive disorder. Larger high quality randomised controlled trials involving longer follow up periods are needed, to further test cognitive behavioural treatments, and other psychological approaches, in comparison to each other and control conditions. Future trials should examine the predictors of response to each treatment, and also conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the efficacy of venlafaxine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of major depressive disorder.To review acceptability of treatment with venlafaxine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.To investigate the adverse effects of venlafaxine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.

Background Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is a highly prevalent condition, characterised by excessive worry or anxiety about everyday events and problems. The effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of psychological therapies as a group has not yet been evaluated in the treatment of GAD. Objectives To examine the efficacy and acceptability of psychological therapies, categorised as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy and supportive therapy, compared with treatment as usual/waiting list (TAU/WL) and compared with one another, for patients with GAD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis Group (CCDAN) Controlled Trials Register and conducted supplementary searches of MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, LILACS and controlledtrials.com in February 2006. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and contacted trial authors and experts in the field for information on ongoing/completed trials. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials conducted in non-inpatient settings, involving adults aged 18-75 years with a primary diagnosis of GAD, assigned to a psychological therapy condition compared with TAU/WL or another psychological therapy. Data collection and analysis Data on patients, interventions and outcomes were extracted by two review authors independently, and the methodological quality of each study was assessed. The primary outcome was anxiety reduction, based on a dichotomous measure of clinical response, using relative risk (RR), and on a continuous measure of symptom reduction, using the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals. Main results Twenty five studies (1305 participants) were included in the review, of which 22 studies (1060 participants) contributed data to meta-analyses. Based on thirteen studies, psychological therapies, all using a CBT approach, were more effective than TAU/WL in achieving clinical response at post-treatment (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.74), and also in reducing anxiety, worry and depression symptoms. No studies conducted longer-term assessments of CBT against TAU/WL. Six studies compared CBT against supportive therapy (non-directive therapy and attention-placebo conditions). No significant difference in clinical response was indicated between CBT and supportive therapy at post-treatment (RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.06), however, significant heterogeneity was indicated, which was partly explained by the number of therapy sessions. Authors' conclusions Psychological therapy based on CBT principles is effective in reducing anxiety symptoms for short-term treatment of GAD. The body of evidence comparing CBT with other psychological therapies is small and heterogeneous, which precludes drawing conclusions about which psychological therapy is more effective. Further studies examining non-CBT models are required to inform health care policy on the most appropriate forms of psychological therapy in treating GAD.