Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Available evidence on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare and rank the different types and formats of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents. METHODS: We searched eight databases and other international registers up to 31 December 2020. The pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses estimated pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ORs with random-effects model. Efficacy at post-treatment and follow-up, acceptability, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured. FINDINGS: We included 56 randomised controlled trials with 5327 patients comparing 14 different types of psychotherapies and 3 control conditions. For efficacy, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), behavioural therapy (BT), individual trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing, and group TF-CBT were significantly superior to all control conditions at post-treatment and follow-up (SMDs between -2.42 and -0.25). Moreover, CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT were more effective than supportive therapy (SMDs between -1.92 and -0.49). Results for depressive and anxiety symptoms were similar to the findings for the primary outcome. Most of the results were rated as 'moderate' to 'very low' in terms of confidence of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT appear to be the best choices of psychotherapy for PTSD in young patients. Other types and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Clinicians should consider the importance of each outcome and the patients' preferences in real clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".