Search

Psychotherapies are first-line treatments for most mental disorders, but their absolute outcomes (i.e., response and remission rates) are not well studied, despite the relevance of such information for health care users, providers and policy makers. We aimed to examine absolute and relative outcomes of psychotherapies across eight mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). We used a series of living systematic reviews included in the Metapsy initiative (www.metapsy.org), with a common strategy for literature search, inclusion of studies and extraction of data, and a common format for the analyses. Literature search was conducted in major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up to January 1, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials comparing psychotherapies for any of the eight mental disorders, established by a diagnostic interview, with a control group (waitlist, care-as-usual, or pill placebo). We conducted random-effects model pairwise meta-analyses. The main outcome was the absolute rate of response (at least 50% symptom reduction between baseline and post-test) in the treatment and control conditions. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk (RR) of response, and the number needed to treat (NNT). Random-effects meta-analyses of the included 441 trials (33,881 patients) indicated modest response rates for psychotherapies: 0.42 (95% CI: 0.39-0.45) for MDD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33-0.43) for PTSD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.30-0.47) for OCD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33-0.43) for panic disorder; 0.36 (95% CI: 0.30-0.42) for GAD; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.29-0.37) for social anxiety disorder; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.23-0.42) for specific phobia; and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.15-0.36) for BPD. Most sensitivity analyses broadly supported these findings. The RRs were significant for all disorders, except BPD. Our conclusion is that most psychotherapies for the eight mental disorders are effective compared with control conditions, but absolute response rates are modest. More effective treatments and interventions for those not responding to a first-line treatment are needed., (© 2024 World Psychiatric Association.)

Objectives: This descriptive study of registered trials aimed to identify large clinical trials on antidepressants for mental disorders: (1) to assess what proportion could be labelled as 'seeding trials' (trials for marketing purposes) and (2) to describe their methodological characteristics and outcomes., Design: A search was conducted across all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by drug name in March 2017., Setting: All trials registered in the database of ClinicalTrials.gov were screened. Large registered studies were received and studies focusing prospectively on the effects of antidepressants in mental health disorders. Specific data items were extracted automatically, and subsequently inspected, corrected and completed by hand., Participants: Prospective studies were selected focusing on the effects of antidepressants in any mental health disorder with 800 participants or more planned for inclusion., Main Outcome Measures: Three members from the study team independently assessed the following 'seeding trial' characteristics in each registered study: a high level of involvement of the product manufacturer in the study design, in the data analysis and reporting of the study, an abnormally low ratio of patient numbers to study site, spin and/or omissions of clinically relevant findings in the abstracts, and conclusions that focused on secondary endpoints and surrogate markers. Secondary outcomes were the exploration of a functional outcome and suicidality., Results: 31 trials were identified from clinical trials database. 18/31 were published (58%). 8 of these 18 (44%) studies were identified as possible seeding trials. 13/31 (42%) large trials planned to explore functioning and 5/31 (16%) suicidality., Conclusions: Large trials are rare in the field of antidepressant research. Some could be 'seeding trials'. Few explored suicidality. Identifying seeding trials from incomplete data entries in registries, especially when almost half of the studies were still unpublished, posed considerable challenges. The delay between our research and publication limits the strength of our conclusions., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017065591., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data., Aims: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602)., Method: Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes., Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ET is a former reviewer at the US Food and Drug Administration (1998-2001).

The effects of psychotherapies for depression have been examined in several hundreds of randomized trials, but no recent network meta-analysis (NMA) has integrated the results of these studies. We conducted an NMA of trials comparing cognitive behavioural, interpersonal, psychodynamic, problem-solving, behavioural activation, life-review and "third wave" therapies and non-directive supportive counseling with each other and with care-as-usual, waiting list and pill placebo control conditions. Response (50% reduction in symptoms) was the primary outcome, but we also assessed remission, standardized mean difference, and acceptability (all-cause dropout rate). Random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted on 331 randomized trials with 34,285 patients. All therapies were more efficacious than care-as-usual and waiting list control conditions, and all therapies - except non-directive supportive counseling and psychodynamic therapy - were more efficacious than pill placebo. Standardized mean differences compared with care-as-usual ranged from -0.81 for life-review therapy to -0.32 for non-directive supportive counseling. Individual psychotherapies did not differ significantly from each other, with the only exception of non-directive supportive counseling, which was less efficacious than all other therapies. The results were similar when only studies with low risk of bias were included. Most therapies still had significant effects at 12-month follow-up compared to care-as-usual, and problem-solving therapy was found to have a somewhat higher long-term efficacy than some other therapies. No consistent differences in acceptability were found. Our conclusion is that the most important types of psychotherapy are efficacious and acceptable in the acute treatment of adult depression, with few significant differences between them. Patient preference and availability of each treatment type may play a larger role in the choice between types of psychotherapy, although it is possible that a more detailed characterization of patients with a diagnosis of depression may lead to a more precise matching between individual patients and individual psychotherapies., (© 2021 World Psychiatric Association.)

Though a plethora of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies explored the neurobiological underpinnings of borderline personality disorder (BPD), findings across different tasks were divergent. We conducted a systematic review and activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis on the fMRI studies conducted in BPD patients compared to healthy controls (HC). We systematically searched PubMed and PsychINFO from inception until July 9th 2020 using combinations of database-specific terms like 'fMRI', 'Neuroimaging', 'borderline'. Eligible studies employed task-based fMRI of the brain in participants of any age diagnosed with BPD compared to HC, during any behavioral task and providing a direct contrast between the groups. From 762 entries, we inspected 92 reports full-texts and included 52 studies (describing 54 experiments). Across all experiments, the HC > BPD and BPD > HC meta-analyses did not yield any cluster of significant convergence of differences. Analyses restricted to studies of emotion processing revealed two significant clusters of activation in the bilateral hippocampal/amygdala complex and anterior cingulate for the BPD > HC meta-analysis. Fail-safe N and single study sensitivity analysis suggested significant findings were not robust. For the subgroup of emotional processing experiments, on a restricted number of experiments providing results for each group separately, another meta-analysis method (difference of convergence) showed a significant cluster in the insula/inferior frontal gyrus for the HC > BPD contrast. No consistent pattern of alteration in brain activity for BPD was evidenced suggesting substantial heterogeneity of processes and populations studied. A pattern of amygdala dysfunction emerged across emotion processing tasks, indicating a potential pathophysiological mechanism that could be transdiagnostic.

In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of non-pharmaceutical measures that pertain to the wider group of social distancing interventions (e.g. public gathering bans, closures of schools, workplaces and all but essential business, mandatory stay-at-home policies, travel restrictions, border closures and others) have been deployed. Their urgent deployment was defended with modelling and observational data of spurious credibility. There is major debate on whether these measures are effective and there is also uncertainty about the magnitude of the harms that these measures might induce. Given that there is equipoise for how, when and if specific social distancing interventions for COVID-19 should be applied and removed/modified during reopening, we argue that informative randomised-controlled trials are needed. Only a few such randomised trials have already been conducted, but the ones done to-date demonstrate that a randomised trials agenda is feasible. We discuss here issues of study design choice, selection of comparators (intervention and controls), choice of outcomes and additional considerations for the conduct of such trials. We also discuss and refute common counter-arguments against the conduct of such trials.

We aimed to assess whether Nobel prizes (widely considered the most prestigious award in science) are clustering in work done in a few specific disciplines. We mapped the key Nobel prize-related publication of each laureate awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry (1995-2017). These key papers mapped in only narrow sub-regions of a 91,726-cluster map of science created from 63 million Scopus-indexed published items. For each key Nobel paper, a median of 435 (range 0 to 88383) other Scopus-indexed items were published within one year and were more heavily cited than the Nobel paper. Of the 114 high-level domains that science can be divided into, only 36 have had a Nobel prize. Five of the 114 domains (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]) have the lion's share, accounting in total for 52.4% of the Nobel prizes. Using a more granular classification with 849 sub-domains shows that only 71 of these sub-domains (8.3%) have at least one Nobel-related paper. Similar clustering was seen when we mapped all the 40,819 Scopus-indexed publications representing the career-long output of all the Nobel laureates. In conclusion, work resulting in Nobel prizes is concentrated in a small minority of scientific disciplines., Competing Interests: KWB is an employee of SciTech, Inc. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction: One potential source of bias in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is researcher allegiance (RA). The operationalisation of RA differs strongly across studies, and there is not a generally accepted method of operationalising or measuring it. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to how RA affects the outcomes of trials and if it results in better outcomes for a preferred intervention. The aim of this project is to develop and validate a scale that accurately identifies RA, contribute to the understanding of the impact that RA has in a research setting and to make recommendations for addressing RA in practice., Methods and Analysis: A scale will first be developed and validated to measure RA in psychotherapy trials. The scale will be validated by surveying authors of psychotherapy trials to assess their opinions, beliefs and preferences of psychotherapy interventions. Furthermore, the scale will be validated for use outside the field of psychotherapy. The validated checklist will then be used to examine two potential mechanisms of how RA may affect outcomes of interventions: publication bias (by assessing grants) and risk of bias (RoB). Finally, recommendations will be developed, and a feasibility study will be conducted at a national mental health agency in The Netherlands. Main analyses comprise inter-rater reliability of checklist items, correlations to examine the relationship between checklist items and author survey (convergent validity) as well as checklist items and trial outcomes and multivariate meta-regression techniques to assess potential mechanisms of how allegiance affects trial outcomes (publication bias and RoB)., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board (VCWE) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Study result and advancements will also be published on the Open Science Framework. Furthermore, main findings will be disseminated through articles in international peer-reviewed open access journals. Results and recommendations will be communicated to the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration and other funding agencies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

We report a meta-analysis of virtual reality (VR) interventions for anxiety and depression outcomes, as well as treatment attrition. We included randomized controlled trials comparing VR interventions, alone or in combination, to control conditions or other active psychological interventions. Effects sizes (Hedges' g) for anxiety and depression outcomes, as post-test and follow-up, were pooled with a random-effects model. Drop-outs were compared using odds ratio (OR) with a Mantel-Haenszel model. We included 39 trials (52 comparisons). Trial risk of bias was unclear for most domains, and high for incomplete outcome data. VR-based therapies were more effective than control at post-test for anxiety, g = 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02, and depression, g = 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.21, but not for treatment attrition, OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.89. Heterogeneity was high and there was consistent evidence of small study effects. There were no significant differences between VR-based and other active interventions. VR interventions outperformed control conditions for anxiety and depression but did not improve treatment drop-out. High heterogeneity, potential publication bias, predominant use of waitlist controls, and high or uncertain risk of bias of most trials question the reliability of these effects.

Aims: Leucht et al. in 2012 described an overview of meta-analyses of the efficacy of medication in psychiatry and general medicine, concluding that psychiatric drugs were not less efficacious than other drugs. Our goal was to explore the dissemination of this highly cited paper, which combined a thought provoking message with a series of caveats., Methods: We conducted a prospectively registered citation content analysis. All papers published before June 1st citing the target paper were independently rated by two investigators. The primary outcome coded dichotomously was whether the citation was used to justify a small or modest effect observed for a given treatment. Secondary outcomes regarded mentioning any caveats when citing the target paper, the point the citation was making (treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine, others), the type of condition (psychiatric, medical or both), specific disease, treatment category and specific type. We also extracted information about the type of citing paper, financial conflict of interest (COI) declared and any industry support. The primary analysis was descriptive by tabulating the extracted variables, with numbers and percentages where appropriate. Co-authorship networks were constructed to identify possible clusters of citing authors. An exploratory univariate logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between each of a subset of pre-specified secondary outcomes and the primary outcome., Results: We identified 135 records and retrieved and analysed 120. Sixty-three (53%) quoted Leucht et al.'s paper to justify a small or modest effect observed for a given therapy, and 113 (94%) did not mention any caveats. Seventy-two (60%) used the citation to claim that treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine; 110 (91%) paper were about psychiatric conditions. Forty-one (34%) papers quoted it without pointing towards any specific treatment category, 28 (23%) were about antidepressants, 18 (15%) about antipsychotics. Forty (33%) of the citing papers included data. COIs were reported in 55 papers (46%). Univariate and multivariate regressions showed an association between a quote justifying small or modest effects and the point that treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine., Conclusions: Our evaluation revealed an overwhelmingly uncritical reception and seemed to indicate that beyond defending psychiatry as a discipline, the paper by Leucht et al. served to lend support and credibility to a therapeutic myth: trivial effects of mental health interventions, most often drugs, are to be expected and therefore accepted.Protocol registration: https://osf.io/9dqat/.

P values represent a widely used, but pervasively misunderstood and fiercely contested method of scientific inference. Display items, such as figures and tables, often containing the main results, are an important source of P values. We conducted a survey comparing the overall use of P values and the occurrence of significant P values in display items of a sample of articles in the three top multidisciplinary journals (Nature, Science, PNAS) in 2017 and, respectively, in 1997. We also examined the reporting of multiplicity corrections and its potential influence on the proportion of statistically significant P values. Our findings demonstrated substantial and growing reliance on P values in display items, with increases of 2.5 to 14.5 times in 2017 compared to 1997. The overwhelming majority of P values (94%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 92% to 96%) were statistically significant. Methods to adjust for multiplicity were almost non-existent in 1997, but reported in many articles relying on P values in 2017 (Nature 68%, Science 48%, PNAS 38%). In their absence, almost all reported P values were statistically significant (98%, 95% CI 96% to 99%). Conversely, when any multiplicity corrections were described, 88% (95% CI 82% to 93%) of reported P values were statistically significant. Use of Bayesian methods was scant (2.5%) and rarely (0.7%) articles relied exclusively on Bayesian statistics. Overall, wider appreciation of the need for multiplicity corrections is a welcome evolution, but the rapid growth of reliance on P values and implausibly high rates of reported statistical significance are worrisome.

Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.

The notion that cognitive bias modification should be appraised exclusively on the basis of trials where its postulated mechanisms were successfully changed starkly contradicts the standards of evidence-based psychotherapy. In the laboratory or as a treatment, cognitive bias modification cannot continue to eschew the rigorous scrutiny applied to other interventions., Competing Interests: Declaration of interestNone., (© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017.)

Aims The standardised mean difference (SMD) is one of the most used effect sizes to indicate the effects of treatments. It indicates the difference between a treatment and comparison group after treatment has ended, in terms of standard deviations. Some meta-analyses, including several highly cited and influential ones, use the pre-post SMD, indicating the difference between baseline and post-test within one (treatment group)., Methods: In this paper, we argue that these pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses and we describe the arguments why pre-post SMDs can result in biased outcomes., Results: One important reason why pre-post SMDs should be avoided is that the scores on baseline and post-test are not independent of each other. The value for the correlation should be used in the calculation of the SMD, while this value is typically not known. We used data from an 'individual patient data' meta-analysis of trials comparing cognitive behaviour therapy and anti-depressive medication, to show that this problem can lead to considerable errors in the estimation of the SMDs. Another even more important reason why pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses is that they are influenced by natural processes and characteristics of the patients and settings, and these cannot be discerned from the effects of the intervention. Between-group SMDs are much better because they control for such variables and these variables only affect the between group SMD when they are related to the effects of the intervention., Conclusions: We conclude that pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses as using them probably results in biased outcomes.

Background: The influence of factors related to the background of investigators conducting trials comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy has remained largely unstudied. Specializations emphasizing biological determinants of mental disorders, like psychiatry, might favor pharmacotherapy, while others stressing psychosocial factors, like psychology, could promote psychotherapy. Yet financial conflict of interest (COI) could be a confounding factor as authors with a medical specialization might receive more sponsoring from the pharmaceutical industry., Method: We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup and meta-regression analysis examining whether the specialization and affiliation of trial authors were associated to outcomes in the direct comparison of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for the acute treatment of depression. Meta-regression analysis also included trial risk of bias and author conflict of interest in relationship to the pharmaceutical industry., Results: We included 45 trials. In half, the first author was psychologist. The last author was psychiatrist/MD in half of the trials, and a psychologist or statistician/other technical in the rest. Most lead authors had medical affiliations. Subgroup analysis indicated that studies with last authors statisticians favored pharmacotherapy. Univariate analysis showed a negative relationship between the presence of statisticians and outcomes favoring psychotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that trials including authors with financial COI reported findings more favorable to pharmacotherapy., Discussion: We report the first detailed overview of the background of authors conducting head to head trials for depression. Trials co-authored by statisticians appear to subtly favor pharmacotherapy. Receiving funding from the industry is more closely related to finding better outcomes for the industry's elective treatment than are factors related to authors' background., Limitations: For a minority of authors we could not retrieve background information. The number of trials was insufficient to evidence subtler effects., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Sponsorship bias has never been investigated for non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy., Aims: We examined industry funding and author financial conflict of interest (COI) in randomised controlled trials directly comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in depression., Method: We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons for industry v. non-industry-funded trials, and respectively for trial reports with author financial COI v. those without., Results: In total, 45 studies were included. In most analyses, pharmacotherapy consistently showed significant effectiveness over psychotherapy, g = -0.11 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.02) in industry-funded trials. Differences between industry and non-industry-funded trials were significant, a result only partly confirmed in sensitivity analyses. We identified five instances where authors of the original article had not reported financial COI., Conclusions: Industry-funded trials for depression appear to subtly favour pharmacotherapy over psychotherapy. Disclosure of all financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged., (© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017.)

We report the current best estimate of the effects of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) in the treatment of major depression (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder (PAD) and social anxiety disorder (SAD), taking into account publication bias, the quality of trials, and the influence of waiting list control groups on the outcomes. In our meta-analyses, we included randomized trials comparing CBT with a control condition (waiting list, care-as-usual or pill placebo) in the acute treatment of MDD, GAD, PAD or SAD, diagnosed on the basis of a structured interview. We found that the overall effects in the 144 included trials (184 comparisons) for all four disorders were large, ranging from g=0.75 for MDD to g=0.80 for GAD, g=0.81 for PAD, and g=0.88 for SAD. Publication bias mostly affected the outcomes of CBT in GAD (adjusted g=0.59) and MDD (adjusted g=0.65), but not those in PAD and SAD. Only 17.4% of the included trials were considered to be high-quality, and this mostly affected the outcomes for PAD (g=0.61) and SAD (g=0.76). More than 80% of trials in anxiety disorders used waiting list control groups, and the few studies using other control groups pointed at much smaller effect sizes for CBT. We conclude that CBT is probably effective in the treatment of MDD, GAD, PAD and SAD; that the effects are large when the control condition is waiting list, but small to moderate when it is care-as-usual or pill placebo; and that, because of the small number of high-quality trials, these effects are still uncertain and should be considered with caution., (© 2016 World Psychiatric Association.)

Aims: Suppose you are the developer of a new therapy for a mental health problem or you have several years of experience working with such a therapy, and you would like to prove that it is effective. Randomised trials have become the gold standard to prove that interventions are effective, and they are used by treatment guidelines and policy makers to decide whether or not to adopt, implement or fund a therapy., Methods: You would want to do such a randomised trial to get your therapy disseminated, but in reality your clinical experience already showed you that the therapy works. How could you do a trial in order to optimise the chance of finding a positive effect?, Results: Methods that can help include a strong allegiance towards the therapy, anything that increases expectations and hope in participants, making use of the weak spots of randomised trials (risk of bias), small sample sizes and waiting list control groups (but not comparisons with existing interventions). And if all that fails one can always not publish the outcomes and wait for positive trials., Conclusions: Several methods are available to help you show that your therapy is effective, even when it is not.

Background and Aims: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions, presumably targeting automatic processes, are considered particularly promising for addictions. We conducted a meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM for substance addiction outcomes., Methods: Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases. We included RCTs of CBM interventions, alone or in combination with other treatments, for any type of addiction. We examined trial risk of bias, publication bias and possible moderators. Effects sizes were computed for post-test and follow-up, using a random-effects model. We grouped outcome measures and reported results for addiction (all related measures), craving and cognitive bias., Results: We identified 25 trials, 18 for alcohol problems, and 7 for smoking. At post-test, there was no significant effect of CBM for addiction, g = 0.08 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.18) or craving, g = 0.05 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.16), but there was a significant, moderate effect on cognitive bias, g = 0.60 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). Results were similar for alcohol and smoking outcomes taken separately. Follow-up addiction outcomes were reported in 7 trials, resulting in a small but significant effect of CBM, g = 0.18 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.32). Results for addiction and craving did not differ by substance type, sample type, delivery setting, bias targeted or number of sessions. Risk of bias was high or uncertain in most trials, for most criteria considered. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant inverse relationships between risk of bias and effect sizes for addiction outcomes and craving. The relationship between cognitive bias and respectively addiction ESs was not significant. There was consistent evidence of publication bias in the form of funnel plot asymmetry., Conclusions: Our results cast serious doubts on the clinical utility of CBM interventions for addiction problems, but sounder methodological trials are necessary before this issue can be settled. We found no indication that positive effects on biases translate into effects on addiction outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) experience anxiety and avoidance in face-to-face interactions. We performed a meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies in SAD to provide a comprehensive understanding of the neural underpinnings of face perception in this disorder. To this purpose, we adopted an innovative approach, asking authors for unpublished data. This is a common procedure for behavioral meta-analyses, which, however has never been used in neuroimaging studies. We searched Pubmed with the key words "Social Anxiety AND faces" and "Social Phobia AND faces." Then, we selected those fMRI studies for which we were able to obtain data for the comparison between SAD and healthy controls (HC) in a face perception task, either from the published papers or from the authors themselves. In this way, we obtained 23 studies (totaling 449 SAD and 424 HC individuals). We identified significant clusters in which faces evoked a higher response in SAD in bilateral amygdala, globus pallidus, superior temporal sulcus, visual cortex, and prefrontal cortex. We also found a higher activity for HC in the lingual gyrus and in the posterior cingulate. Our findings show that altered neural response to face in SAD is not limited to emotional structures but involves a complex network. These results may have implications for the understanding of SAD pathophysiology, as they suggest that a dysfunctional face perception process may bias patient person-to-person interactions., (© 2015 by the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.)

The objective assessment of psychological traits of healthy subjects and psychiatric patients has been growing interest in clinical and bioengineering research fields during the last decade. Several experimental evidences strongly suggest that a link between Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) dynamics and specific dimensions such as anxiety, social phobia, stress, and emotional regulation might exist. Nevertheless, an extensive investigation on a wide range of psycho-cognitive scales and ANS non-invasive markers gathered from standard and non-linear analysis still needs to be addressed. In this study, we analyzed the discerning and correlation capabilities of a comprehensive set of ANS features and psycho-cognitive scales in 29 non-pathological subjects monitored during resting conditions. In particular, the state of the art of standard and non-linear analysis was performed on Heart Rate Variability, InterBreath Interval series, and InterBeat Respiration series, which were considered as monovariate and multivariate measurements. Experimental results show that each ANS feature is linked to specific psychological traits. Moreover, non-linear analysis outperforms the psychological assessment with respect to standard analysis. Considering that the current clinical practice relies only on subjective scores from interviews and questionnaires, this study provides objective tools for the assessment of psychological dimensions.

Background: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice., Aims: To examine the efficiency of CBM for clinically relevant outcomes, along with study quality, publication bias and potential moderators., Method: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM interventions that reported clinically relevant outcomes assessed with standardised instruments., Results: We identified 49 trials and grouped outcomes into anxiety and depression. Effect sizes were small considering all the samples, and mostly non-significant for patient samples. Effect sizes became non-significant when outliers were excluded and after adjustment for publication bias. The quality of the RCTs was suboptimal., Conclusions: CBM may have small effects on mental health problems, but it is also very well possible that there are no significant clinically relevant effects. Research in this field is hampered by small and low-quality trials, and by risk of publication bias. Many positive outcomes are driven by extreme outliers., (Royal College of Psychiatrists.)