James Anthony C, Reardon Tessa, Soler Angela, James Georgina, Creswell Cathy
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Highfield Unit, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 16;11(11):CD013162. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013162.pub2.
Previous Cochrane Reviews have shown that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders. However, questions remain regarding the following: up-to-date evidence of the relative efficacy and acceptability of CBT compared to waiting lists/no treatment, treatment as usual, attention controls, and alternative treatments; benefits across a range of outcomes; longer-term effects; outcomes for different delivery formats; and amongst children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and children with intellectual impairments.
To examine the effect of CBT for childhood anxiety disorders, in comparison with waitlist/no treatment, treatment as usual (TAU), attention control, alternative treatment, and medication.
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (all years to 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (each to October 2019), international trial registries, and conducted grey literature searches.
We included randomised controlled trials of CBT that involved direct contact with the child, parent, or both, and included non-CBT comparators (waitlist/no treatment, treatment as usual, attention control, alternative treatment, medication). Participants were younger than age 19, and met diagnostic criteria for an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Primary outcomes were remission of primary anxiety diagnosis post-treatment, and acceptability (number of participants lost to post-treatment assessment), and secondary outcomes included remission of all anxiety diagnoses, reduction in anxiety symptoms, reduction in depressive symptoms, improvement in global functioning, adverse effects, and longer-term effects.
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
We included 87 studies and 5964 participants in quantitative analyses. Compared with waitlist/no treatment, CBT probably increases post-treatment remission of primary anxiety diagnoses (CBT: 49.4%, waitlist/no treatment: 17.8%; OR 5.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.90 to 7.60; n = 2697, 39 studies, moderate quality); NNTB 3 (95% CI 2.25 to 3.57) and all anxiety diagnoses (OR 4.43, 95% CI 2.89 to 6.78; n = 2075, 28 studies, moderate quality). Low-quality evidence did not show a difference between CBT and TAU in post-treatment primary anxiety disorder remission (OR 3.19, 95% CI 0.90 to 11.29; n = 487, 8 studies), but did suggest CBT may increase remission from all anxiety disorders compared to TAU (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.46; n = 203, 5 studies). Compared with attention control, CBT may increase post-treatment remission of primary anxiety disorders (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.89; n = 822, 10 studies, low quality) and all anxiety disorders (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.17; n = 378, 5 studies, low quality). There was insufficient available data to compare CBT to alternative treatments on post-treatment remission of primary anxiety disorders, and low-quality evidence showed there may be little to no difference between these groups on post-treatment remission of all anxiety disorders (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.23; n = 401, 4 studies) Low-quality evidence did not show a difference for acceptability between CBT and waitlist/no treatment (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; n=3158, 45 studies), treatment as usual (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.56; n = 441, 8 studies), attention control (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.49; n = 797, 12 studies) and alternative treatment (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.13; n=515, 7 studies). No adverse effects were reported across all studies; however, in the small number of studies where any reference was made to adverse effects, it was not clear that these were systematically monitored. Results from the anxiety symptom outcomes, broader outcomes, longer-term outcomes and subgroup analyses are provided in the text. We did not find evidence of consistent differences in outcomes according to delivery formats (e.g. individual versus group; amount of therapist contact time) or amongst samples with and without ASD, and no studies included samples of children with intellectual impairments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CBT is probably more effective in the short-term than waiting lists/no treatment, and may be more effective than attention control. We found little to no evidence across outcomes that CBT is superior to usual care or alternative treatments, but our confidence in these findings are limited due to concerns about the amount and quality of available evidence, and we still know little about how best to efficiently improve outcomes.
既往Cochrane系统评价表明,认知行为疗法(CBT)对治疗儿童焦虑症有效。然而,以下问题仍存在:与等待名单/无治疗、常规治疗、注意力控制及替代治疗相比,CBT相对疗效和可接受性的最新证据;一系列结局的获益情况;长期效果;不同治疗形式的结局;以及自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)儿童和智力障碍儿童中的结局。
与等待名单/无治疗、常规治疗(TAU)、注意力控制、替代治疗及药物治疗相比,研究CBT对儿童焦虑症的疗效。
我们检索了Cochrane常见精神障碍对照试验注册库(截至2016年的所有年份)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase和PsycINFO(均截至2019年10月)、国际试验注册库,并进行了灰色文献检索。
我们纳入了涉及直接接触儿童、父母或两者的CBT随机对照试验,并纳入了非CBT对照(等待名单/无治疗、常规治疗、注意力控制、替代治疗、药物治疗)。参与者年龄小于19岁,且符合焦虑症诊断标准。主要结局为治疗后原发性焦虑症诊断的缓解及可接受性(治疗后评估失访的参与者数量),次要结局包括所有焦虑症诊断的缓解、焦虑症状减轻、抑郁症状减轻、整体功能改善、不良反应及长期效果。
我们采用Cochrane推荐的标准方法程序。我们使用GRADE评估证据质量。
我们纳入了87项研究和5964名参与者进行定量分析。与等待名单/无治疗相比,CBT可能增加治疗后原发性焦虑症诊断的缓解率(CBT:49.4%,等待名单/无治疗:17.8%;OR 5.45,95%置信区间(CI)3.90至7.60;n = 2697,39项研究,中等质量);需治疗人数为3(95%CI 2.25至3.57)以及所有焦虑症诊断的缓解率(OR 4.43,95%CI 2.89至6.78;n = 2075,28项研究,中等质量)。低质量证据未显示CBT与TAU在治疗后原发性焦虑症缓解方面存在差异(OR 3.19,95%CI 0.90至11.29;n = 487,8项研究),但提示与TAU相比,CBT可能增加所有焦虑症的缓解率(OR 2.74,95%CI 1.16至6.46;n = 203,5项研究)。与注意力控制相比,CBT可能增加治疗后原发性焦虑症(OR 2.28,95%CI 1.33至3.89;n = 822,10项研究,低质量)和所有焦虑症(OR 2.75,95%CI 1.22至6.17;n = 378,5项研究,低质量)的缓解率。没有足够的数据来比较CBT与替代治疗在治疗后原发性焦虑症缓解方面的差异,低质量证据显示这些组在治疗后所有焦虑症缓解方面可能几乎没有差异(OR 0.89,95%CI 0.35至2.23;n = 401,4项研究)。低质量证据未显示CBT与等待名单/无治疗(OR 1.09,95%CI 0.85至1.41;n = 3158,45项研究)、常规治疗(OR 1.37,95%CI 0.73至2.56;n = 441,8项研究)、注意力控制(OR 1.00,95%CI 0.68至1.49;n = 797,12项研究)及替代治疗(OR 1.58,95%CI 0.61至4.13;n = 515,7项研究)在可接受性方面存在差异。所有研究均未报告不良反应;然而,在少数提及不良反应的研究中,不清楚这些是否进行了系统监测。焦虑症状结局、更广泛结局、长期结局及亚组分析的结果在正文中提供。我们未发现根据治疗形式(如个体与团体;治疗师接触时间量)或有无ASD样本在结局上存在一致差异的证据,且没有研究纳入智力障碍儿童样本。
CBT在短期内可能比等待名单/无治疗更有效,且可能比注意力控制更有效。我们几乎没有发现证据表明CBT在所有结局上优于常规治疗或替代治疗,但由于对现有证据的数量和质量存在担忧,我们对这些发现的信心有限,并且我们对如何最有效地改善结局仍知之甚少。