Abbass Allan A, Kisely Steve R, Town Joel M, Leichsenring Falk, Driessen Ellen, De Maat Saskia, Gerber Andrew, Dekker Jack, Rabung Sven, Rusalovska Svitlana, Crowe Elizabeth
Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, 8203 - 5909 Veterans Memorial Lane, Halifax, NS, Canada, B3H 2E2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 1;2014(7):CD004687. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004687.pub4.
Since the mid-1970s, short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies (STPP) for a broad range of psychological and somatic disorders have been developed and studied. Early published meta-analyses of STPP, using different methods and samples, have yielded conflicting results, although some meta-analyses have consistently supported an empirical basis for STPP. This is an update of a review that was last updated in 2006.
To evaluate the efficacy of STPP for adults with common mental disorders compared with wait-list controls, treatments as usual and minimal contact controls in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To specify the differential effects of STPP for people with different disorders (e.g. depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, mixed disorders and personality disorder) and treatment characteristics (e.g. manualised versus non-manualised therapies).
The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) was searched to February 2014, this register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). We also conducted searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, DARE and Biological Abstracts (all years to July 2012) and all relevant studies (identified to 2012) were fully incorporated in this review update. We checked references from papers retrieved. We contacted a large group of psychodynamic researchers in an attempt to find new studies.
We included all RCTs of adults with common mental disorders, in which a brief psychodynamic therapy lasting 40 or fewer hours in total was provided in individual format.
Eight review authors working in pairs evaluated studies. We selected studies only if pairs of review authors agreed that the studies met inclusion criteria. We consulted a third review author if two review authors could not reach consensus. Two review authors collected data and entered it into Review Manager software. Two review authors assessed and scored risk of bias. We assessed publication bias using a funnel plot. Two review authors conducted and reviewed subgroup analyses.
We included 33 studies of STPP involving 2173 randomised participants with common mental disorders. Studies were of diverse conditions in which problems with emotional regulation were purported to play a causative role albeit through a range of symptom presentations. These studies evaluated STPP for this review's primary outcomes (general, somatic, anxiety and depressive symptom reduction), as well as interpersonal problems and social adjustment. Except for somatic measures in the short-term, all outcome categories suggested significantly greater improvement in the treatment versus the control groups in the short-term and medium-term. Effect sizes increased in long-term follow-up, but some of these effects did not reach statistical significance. A relatively small number of studies (N < 20) contributed data for the outcome categories. There was also significant heterogeneity between studies in most categories, possibly due to observed differences between manualised versus non-manualised treatments, short versus longer treatments, studies with observer-rated versus self report outcomes, and studies employing different treatment models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There has been further study of STPP and it continues to show promise, with modest to large gains for a wide variety of people. However, given the limited data, loss of significance in some measures at long-term follow-up and heterogeneity between studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, variability in treatment delivery and treatment quality may limit the reliability of estimates of effect for STPP. Larger studies of higher quality and with specific diagnoses are warranted.
自20世纪70年代中期以来,针对广泛的心理和躯体疾病的短期心理动力心理治疗(STPP)已得到开发和研究。早期发表的关于STPP的荟萃分析,使用了不同的方法和样本,得出了相互矛盾的结果,尽管一些荟萃分析一直支持STPP的实证基础。这是对2006年最后更新的一篇综述的更新。
在随机对照试验(RCT)中,评估STPP与等待名单对照、常规治疗和最小接触对照相比,对患有常见精神障碍的成年人的疗效。明确STPP对患有不同疾病(如抑郁症、焦虑症、躯体形式障碍、混合性障碍和人格障碍)的人群以及治疗特征(如手册化治疗与非手册化治疗)的差异效应。
检索了Cochrane抑郁、焦虑和神经症小组的专业注册库(CCDANCTR)至2014年2月,该注册库包括来自Cochrane图书馆(所有年份)、EMBASE(1974年至今)、MEDLINE(1950年至今)和PsycINFO(1967年至今)的相关随机对照试验。我们还对CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、DARE和生物学文摘(至2012年7月的所有年份)进行了检索,所有相关研究(截至2012年确定)都被完全纳入本次综述更新中。我们检查了检索到的论文的参考文献。我们联系了一大批心理动力研究人员,试图找到新的研究。
我们纳入了所有针对患有常见精神障碍的成年人的RCT,其中以个体形式提供了总共持续40小时或更少时间的简短心理动力治疗。
八位综述作者两两合作评估研究。只有当综述作者对符合纳入标准达成一致时,我们才选择研究。如果两位综述作者无法达成共识,我们会咨询第三位综述作者。两位综述作者收集数据并将其输入Review Manager软件。两位综述作者评估并对偏倚风险进行评分。我们使用漏斗图评估发表偏倚。两位综述作者进行并审查亚组分析。
我们纳入了33项关于STPP的研究,涉及2173名患有常见精神障碍的随机参与者。这些研究的条件各不相同,其中情绪调节问题被认为在一系列症状表现中起着因果作用。这些研究评估了STPP对本综述的主要结局(一般、躯体、焦虑和抑郁症状减轻)以及人际问题和社会适应的影响。除了短期内的躯体测量外,所有结局类别均表明,在短期和中期,治疗组与对照组相比有显著更大的改善。长期随访中效应量增加,但其中一些效应未达到统计学显著性。相对较少的研究(N < 20)为结局类别提供了数据。在大多数类别中,研究之间也存在显著的异质性,这可能是由于观察到的手册化治疗与非手册化治疗、短期治疗与长期治疗、采用观察者评定结局与自我报告结局的研究以及采用不同治疗模型的研究之间的差异所致。
对STPP进行了进一步研究,它继续显示出前景,对各种各样的人有适度到较大的益处。然而,鉴于数据有限、长期随访中一些测量失去显著性以及研究之间的异质性,这些发现应谨慎解释。此外,治疗实施和治疗质量的变异性可能会限制STPP效应估计的可靠性。有必要开展更高质量且针对特定诊断的更大规模研究。