MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782860524 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018900

Which patients benefit specifically from short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) for depression? Study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

2018· review· en· W2782860524 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Driessen, Allan Abbass, Jacques P. Barber, Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons, Jack Dekker, Marjolein Fokkema, Peter Fonagy, Steven D. Hollon, Elise P. Jansma, S.C.M. de Maat, Joel M. Town, Jos W. R. Twisk, Henricus L. Van, Erica Weitz, Pim Cuijpers

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAmerican Psychoanalytic Association
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineMeta-analysisMEDLINEProtocol (science)Systematic reviewClinical trialGrey literaturePublication biasDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) is an empirically supported treatment that is often used to treat depression. However, it is largely unclear if certain subgroups of depressed patients can benefit specifically from this treatment method. We describe the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) aimed at identifying predictors and moderators of STPP for depression efficacy. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic literature search in multiple bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase.com, Web of Science and Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials), 'grey literature' databases (GLIN and UMI ProQuest) and a prospective trial register (http://www.controlled-trials.com). We will include studies reporting (a) outcomes on standardised measures of (b) depressed (c) adult patients (d) receiving STPP. We will next invite the authors of these studies to share the participant-level data of their trials and combine these data to conduct IPD meta-analyses. The primary outcome for this study is post-treatment efficacy as assessed by a continuous depression measure. Potential predictors and moderators include all sociodemographic variables, clinical variables and psychological patient characteristics that are measured before the start of treatment and are assessed consistently across studies. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using mixed-effects models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional review board approval is not required for this study. We intend to submit reports of the outcomes of this study for publication to international peer-reviewed journals in the fields of psychiatry or clinical psychology. We also intend to present the outcomes at international scientific conferences aimed at psychotherapy researchers and clinicians. The findings of this study can have important clinical implications, as they can inform expectations of STPP efficacy for individual patients, and help to make an informed choice concerning the best treatment option for a given patient. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017056029.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.031
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0120.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.591
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.010 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207