Comparing apples and oranges in youth depression treatments? A quantitative critique of the evidence base and guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Should a young person receive psychotherapy or medication for their depression and on what evidence do we base this decision? In this paper, we test the factors across modalities that may influence comparability between medication and psychotherapy trials. METHODS: We included 92 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapy and medication for child and adolescent depression (mean age 4-18 years). Using meta-analyses, we compared (a) participant characteristics and (b) trial characteristics in medication and psychotherapy trials. Lastly, we examined whether psychotherapy controls are well-matched to active conditions. RESULTS: Participants in medication RCTs had higher depression severity and were more frequently male compared with psychotherapy RCTs. There was a dramatic difference in the within-subject improvement due to placebo (SMD=-1.9 (95% CI: -2.1 to -1.7)) vs. psychotherapy controls (SMD=-0.6 (95% CI: -0.9 to -0.3)). Within psychotherapy RCTs, control conditions were less intensive on average than active conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Medication and psychotherapy RCTs differ on fundamental participant and methodological characteristics, thereby raising questions about their comparability. Psychotherapy controls often involve little therapist contact and are easy-to-beat comparators. These findings cast doubt on the confidence with which psychotherapy is recommended for youth depression and highlight the pressing need to improve the evidence base.
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 | 0.173 | 0.382 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".