Wang Yingying, Miguel Clara, Ciharova Marketa, Amarnath Arpana, Lin Jingyuan, Zhao Ruiying, Toffolo Marieke B J, Struijs Sascha Y, de Wit Leonore M, Cuijpers Pim
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The Institute of Brain and Psychological Science, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, China.
Psychol Med. 2024 Aug;54(11):2838-2851. doi: 10.1017/S0033291724001375. Epub 2024 Sep 6.
Although numerous studies have examined the effects of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), their overall effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to estimate their overall effect by combining all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological treatments to control groups for OCD.
We conducted a meta-analysis of 48 RCTs with 55 comparisons published between 1992 and 1 January 2023. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated at post-treatment and follow-up. Random-effects models were employed for all analyses, and the risk of bias was assessed.
In general, psychological treatments demonstrated a significantly large effect ( = -1.14; 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.97]; = 72.23%) on reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment, this finding remained consistent across measures and after excluding outliers, but lost significance in the sensitivity analysis for only studies with low risk of bias. Type of treatment, control group and treatment format were associated with treatment effects. Moreover, more severe baseline OCD symptom severity predicted higher degree of treatment efficacy. No significant differences were observed in dropout rates between the treatment and control groups. Treatment effects lost significance at 3-6 and 6-12 month follow-ups. 87% of RCTs were rated at high risk of bias.
Psychological treatments are effective in reducing OCD symptom severity. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the high heterogeneity and risk of bias across RCTs. Future studies with more rigorous methodology are required, as well as studies examining their long-term effectiveness.
尽管众多研究探讨了心理治疗对强迫症(OCD)的影响,但其总体有效性仍不明确。我们旨在通过合并所有比较心理治疗与强迫症对照组的随机对照试验(RCT)来估计其总体效果。
我们对1992年至2023年1月1日期间发表的48项RCT进行了荟萃分析,共有55项比较。主要结局是强迫症症状严重程度,在治疗后和随访时计算Hedges' g。所有分析均采用随机效应模型,并评估偏倚风险。
总体而言,心理治疗在治疗后对降低强迫症症状严重程度显示出显著的大效应(g = -1.14;95%CI [-I.31至-0.97];P = 72.23%),这一发现 across measures一致,排除异常值后依然如此,但在仅针对低偏倚风险研究的敏感性分析中失去了显著性。治疗类型、对照组和治疗形式与治疗效果相关。此外,基线强迫症症状严重程度越高,预测治疗效果越好。治疗组和对照组的脱落率未观察到显著差异。在3 - 6个月和6 - I2个月随访时,治疗效果失去显著性。87%的RCT被评为高偏倚风险。
心理治疗在降低强迫症症状严重程度方面是有效的。然而,由于RCT之间存在高度异质性和偏倚风险,在解释这些结果时应谨慎。需要更严格方法的未来研究,以及考察其长期有效性的研究。