Corrigendum to ‘A comparison of electronically-delivered and face to face cognitive behavioural therapies in depressive disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis’ [EClinicalMedicine 24 (2020) 100442]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We wish to provide a clarification of the labels of the forest plot, Fig. 3, in the published study. The SD column should be labelled as the “standard error of the mean difference”. We provide a detailed explanation of what Fig. 3 columns refer to:(1)Mean: This refers to the mean difference of the group scores which was calculated as the pre-treatment score minus post treatment score.(2)SD: This refers to the standard error of the mean (SEM) difference which was calculated as SQRT (SEM of the pre-treatment score^2+SEM of the post-treatment score ^2). The SEM for pre and post treatment scores was calculated as SD/SQRT of sample size.(3)Total: This is the sample size in each study arm(4)The final weight and the SMD IV, Random, 95%CI were generated by RevMan. Table 1Table 1Depressive symptoms severity scores for electronic and face to face CBT data used to generate the meta-analysis in Fig. 3.IdentificationSymptom SeverityInterventionControlStudy NumberFirst author's last namePublication yearNumber of Sample in InterventionNumber of Sample in ControlMean Pre-Treatment ControlStandard Deviation Pretreatment ControlSEMMean Pre Treatment InterventionStandard Deviation Pre Treatment InterventionSEMMean Post Treatment ControlStandard Deviation Post Treatment ControlSEMMean Post Treatment InterventionStandard Deviation Post Treatment InterventionSEMMean Last Follow Up Control GroupStandard Deviation Last Follow Up ControlSEMMean Last Follow Up InterventionStandard Deviation Last Follow Up InterventionSEMMean Difference Pre-Post TreatmentStandard errorMean Difference Pre-Post TreatmentStandard errorstudy_numberauthor_namejournalNumber_interventionNumber_controlmeandifference1SDmeanSDmeandifference 2Meandifference3296Luxton, D2016625929.6911.741.52841781526.6511.81.49860149911.7412.081.57268204513.6312.471.5836915841512.611.64168216714.5813.181.67386167413.022.18034068117.952.193032109303Mohr, D201216316222.834.60.36141013322.834.60.36029980712.518.410.66075200313.587.550.5913616412.148.470.66546604915.067.910.6195590169.250.69247710410.320.753133782503Choi, N*2014566327.756.590.83026195923.546.440.86058119914.087.460.93987165613.687.480.99955704514.160.990.12472827611.081.070.1429847649.861.31898229213.671.254070832373Wagner2014323023.417.631.39304103822.966.071.0730345412.338.771.6011756112.4110.031.77307025414.479.331.7034171549.287.51.32582521510.552.07248190611.082.122339904767Sethi2013232121.426.81.48388165417.655.031.0488275037.83.090.67429328112.173.120.650564972NANA#VALUE!NANA#VALUE!5.481.23420983313.621.629900669279Sethi2010910195.11.61276160716.49.23.0666666677.23.10.98030607515.74.21.47.23.10.98030607515.74.21.40.73.37111916811.81.887326151490Wright**2005151524.46.81.7557524531.18.22.1172308969.78.52.19469056310.78.12.091411007MD: 9.6MD in SD: 6.0#VALUE!MD: 21.5MD: 9.4#VALUE!20.42.97601523314.72.810575267774Himelhoch2013161824.65.31.2492219822.65.21.315.97.21.69705627516.38.62.15NA006.32.5124689058.72.107262574347Poppelaars2016515063.3510.391.46936789162.6111.971.67613526159.3313.271.87666139757.8812.571.76015206662.4412.771.80595071957.0814.211.9897979994.732.4305482324.022.38346386636Glueckauf, R20127711.87.42.796937112.678.913.36766345595.72.1543974964.672.070.782386459no FU0083.4573524142.83.5304795340Kalapatapu, R2014505321.83.80.52197014322.24.70.66468037411.87.20.9889960612.89.21.30107647713.58.71.19503690613.58.71.2303657999.41.461027036101.1182871557Nelson, E2003141413.578.752.33853586714.369.852.63252323311.6411.633.1082482436.714.781.277508736no FU007.652.9261249361.933.889724559187Kay-Lambkin, F2009323534.919.71.63959925428.579.891.74832151616.6510.631.79679794617.0912.142.146069081Mean: 6.7 SD: 4.940011.482.76807525618.262.432440867242Andersson, G2013333624.150.83333333323.64.80.83557274917.181.33333333313.69.81.70596102813.58.71.459.27.61.322990185101.89960123471.572330189* Choi study, intervention arm selected was tele n = 56, control is face to face n = 63) SD pretreatment and post treatment were corrected (a previous mix up between SE and SD) paper provided SE, SD was calculated based on SD= se X SQRT of sample size.** Wright study, corrected numbers stand dev post treat control should be 8.5 instead of 3.1329 and mean post treat intervention should be 10.7 instead of 13.9 and SD should be 8.1 instead of 3.1329. Open table in a new tab * Choi study, intervention arm selected was tele n = 56, control is face to face n = 63) SD pretreatment and post treatment were corrected (a previous mix up between SE and SD) paper provided SE, SD was calculated based on SD= se X SQRT of sample size. ** Wright study, corrected numbers stand dev post treat control should be 8.5 instead of 3.1329 and mean post treat intervention should be 10.7 instead of 13.9 and SD should be 8.1 instead of 3.1329. We acknowledge an error in numbers extracted from Choi et al. 2014 which provided standard error and not SD (now correctly calculated from the SE using this formula: SD= SE x SQRT of sample size) and Wright et al. 2005 post treatment numbers were incorrectly extracted. We provide the data file with corrected numbers. We re-did the meta-analysis with the corrected numbers, the results continued to be consistent and in the same direction as in the review (original overall estimate in the meta-analysis of the depression severity score from Fig. 3 was (−1.73, 95% CI −2.72, −0.74, I2 98%), revised analysis (−0.92, 95% CI −1.76, −0.09, I2 97%)). This error did not change the results, direction, or the conclusions. A comparison of electronically-delivered and face to face cognitive behavioural therapies in depressive disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysisAlthough we found eCBT to have moderate evidence of effectiveness in reducing symptoms of depression, high heterogeneity among studies precludes definitive conclusions for all outcomes. With the current reliance and accessibility of technology to increasing number of people worldwide, serious consideration in utilizing technology should be given to maximize accessibility for depression treatments. Our results found eCBT is at least as effective as face to face CBT, thus eCBT should be offered if preferred by patients and therapists. Full-Text PDF Open Access
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".