This systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) examined the overall effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) in reducing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, achieving response and remission, and reducing treatment dropout among adults with PTSD compared to other psychological treatments. Additionally, we examined available participant-level moderators of the efficacy of EMDR.

This study included randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, PsyclNFO, PTSDpubs, and CENTRAL. The target population was adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms. Trials were eligible if at least 70% of study participants had been diagnosed with PTSD using a structured clinical interview. Primary outcomes included PTSD symptom severity, treatment response, and PTSD remission. Treatment dropout was a secondary outcome. The systematic search retrieved 15 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 8 of these 15 were able to be included in this IPDMA (346 patients). Comparator treatments included relaxation therapy, emotional freedom technique, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral psychotherapies, and REM-desensitization.

One-stage IPDMA found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments in reducing PTSD symptom severity (β = −0.24), achieving response (β = 0.86), attaining remission (β = 1.05), or reducing treatment dropout rates (β = −0.25). Moderator analyses found unemployed participants receiving EMDR had higher PTSD symptom severity at the post-test, and males were more likely to drop out of EMDR treatment than females.

The current study found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments. We found some indication of the moderating effects of gender and employment status.

Online treatments are increasing in number and are currently available for a wide range of clinical problems. To date little is known about the role of treatment expectations and other placebo-like mechanisms in online settings compared to traditional face-to-face treatment. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed individual participant data from randomized clinical trials that compared online and face-to-face psychological interventions.

MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid) were last searched on 2 February 2021. Randomized clinical trials of therapist guided online v. face-to-face psychological interventions for psychiatric or somatic conditions using a randomized controlled design were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies were independently screened by multiple observers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Authors of the matching trials were contacted for individual participant data. Ratings from the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire and the primary outcome measure from each trial were used to estimate the association between expectation ratings and treatment outcomes in online v. face-to-face interventions, using a mixed-effects model.

Of 7045 screened studies, 62 full-text articles were retrieved whereof six studies fulfilled the criteria and provided individual participant data (n = 491). Overall, CEQ ratings predicted clinical outcomes (β = 0.27) at end of treatment with no moderating effect of treatment modality (online v. face-to-face).

Online treatment appears to be equally susceptible to expectancy effects as face-to-face therapy. This furthers our understanding of the importance of placebo-like factors in online treatment and may aid the improvement of healthcare in online settings.

Little is known about the effect of ethnicity on the response to antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia.

To determine whether ethnicity moderates the response to antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia, and whether this moderation is independent of confounders.

We analysed 18 short-term, placebo-controlled registration trials of atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia (N = 3880). A two-step, random-effects, individual patient data meta-analysis was applied to establish the moderating effect of ethnicity (White versus Black) on symptom improvement according to the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and on response, defined as >30% BPRS reduction. These analyses were corrected for baseline severity, baseline negative symptoms, age and gender. A conventional meta-analysis was performed to determine the effect size of antipsychotic treatment for each ethnic group separately.

In the complete data-set, 61% of patients were White, 25.6% of patients were Black and 13.4% of patients were of other ethnicities. Ethnicity did not moderate the efficacy of antipsychotic treatment: pooled β-coefficient for the interaction between treatment and ethnic group was −0.582 (95% CI −2.567 to 1.412) for mean BPRS change, with an odds ratio of 0.875 (95% CI 0.510–1.499) for response. These results were not modified by confounders.

Atypical antipsychotic medication is equally effective in both Black and White patients with schizophrenia. In registration trials, White and Black patients were overrepresented relative to other ethnic groups, limiting the generalisability of our findings.

Adding short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) to antidepressants increases treatment efficacy, but it is unclear which patients benefit specifically. This study examined efficacy moderators of combined treatment (STPP + antidepressants) v. antidepressants for adults with depression.

For this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056029), we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase.com, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 January 2022. We included randomized clinical trials comparing combined treatment (antidepressants + individual outpatient STPP) v. antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of depression in adults. Individual participant data were requested and analyzed combinedly using mixed-effects models (adding Cochrane risk of bias items as covariates) and an exploratory machine learning technique. The primary outcome was post-treatment depression symptom level.

Data were obtained for all seven trials identified (100%, n = 482, combined: n = 238, antidepressants: n = 244). Adding STPP to antidepressants was more efficacious for patients with high rather than low baseline depression levels [B = −0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.61 to −0.37, p < 0.0001] and for patients with a depressive episode duration of >2 years rather than <1 year (B = −0.68, 95% CI −1.31 to −0.05, p = 0.03) and than 1–2 years (B = −0.86, 95% CI −1.66 to −0.06, p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was low. Effects were replicated in analyses controlling for risk of bias.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that examines moderators across trials assessing the addition of STPP to antidepressants. These findings need validation but suggest that depression severity and episode duration are factors to consider when adding STPP to antidepressants and might contribute to personalizing treatment selection for depression.

Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data.

This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602)

Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes.

To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.

Antidepressant medication and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are both recommended interventions in depression treatment guidelines based on literature reviews and meta-analyses. However, ‘conventional’ meta-analyses comparing their efficacy are limited by their reliance on reported study-level information and a narrow focus on depression outcome measures assessed at treatment completion. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, considered the gold standard in evidence synthesis, can improve the quality of the analyses when compared with conventional meta-analysis.

We describe the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of antidepressants and IPT for adult acute-phase depression across a range of outcome measures, including depressive symptom severity as well as functioning and well-being, at both post-treatment and follow-up (PROSPERO: CRD42020219891).

We will conduct a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised clinical trials comparing antidepressants and IPT in the acute-phase treatment of adults with depression. We will invite the authors of these studies to share the participant-level data of their trials. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects at post-treatment and follow-up for all outcome measures that are assessed in at least two studies.

This will be the first IPD meta-analysis examining antidepressants versus IPT efficacy. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by comparing the short- and long-term effects of two widely used interventions across a range of outcome measures using state-of-the-art statistical techniques.

To determine if a global mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) cut-off can be established to classify underweight in adults (men and non-pregnant women).

We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to explore the sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) of various MUAC cut-offs for identifying underweight among adults (defined as BMI < 18·5 kg/m2). Measures of diagnostic accuracy were determined every 0·5 cm across MUAC values from 19·0 to 26·5 cm. A bivariate random effects model was used to jointly estimate SENS and SPEC while accounting for heterogeneity between studies. Various subgroup analyses were performed.

Twenty datasets from Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, North America and South America were included.

All eligible participants from the original datasets were included.

The total sample size was 13 835. Mean age was 32·6 years and 65 % of participants were female. Mean MUAC was 25·7 cm, and 28 % of all participants had low BMI (<18·5 kg/m2). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the pooled dataset was 0·91 (range across studies 0·61–0·98). Results showed that MUAC cut-offs in the range of ≤23·5 to ≤25·0 cm could serve as an appropriate screening indicator for underweight.

MUAC is highly discriminatory in its ability to distinguish adults with BMI above and below 18·5 kg/m2. This IPDMA is the first step towards determining a global MUAC cut-off for adults. Validation studies are needed to determine whether the proposed MUAC cut-off of 24 cm is associated with poor functional outcomes.

Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.

We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.

16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).

PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.