Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials

Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression

Universality of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) problem areas in Thai depressed patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many studies have shown the efficacy of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) on depression; however, there are limited studies concerning the universality of the IPT problem areas in different countries. This study identifies whether the interpersonal problem areas defined in the IPT manual are endorsed by Thai depressed patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Thai Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Thai HRSD) and Thai Interpersonal Questionnaire were used to assess 90 depressed and 90 non-depressed subjects in King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, during July 2007 - January 2008. The association between interpersonal problem areas/sociodemographic variables and depressive disorder were analyzed by chi-square test. A multivariable analysis was performed by using logistic regression to identify the remaining factors associated with depressive disorder.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most of the subjects were young to middle-aged females living in Bangkok and the Central Provinces. All four interpersonal problem areas (grief, interpersonal role disputes, role transitions, and interpersonal deficits) were increased in the depressed subjects as compared to the non-depressed subjects, as were the sociodemographic variables (low education, unemployment, low income, and having a physical illness). Logistic regression showed that all interpersonal problem areas still remained problems associated with depression (grief: adjusted OR = 6.01, 95%CI = 1.93 - 18.69, p < 0.01; interpersonal role disputes: adjusted OR = 6.01, 95%CI = 2.18 - 16.52, p < 0.01; role transitions: adjusted OR = 26.30, 95%CI = 7.84 - 88.25, p < 0.01; and interpersonal deficits: adjusted OR = 2.92, 95%CI = 1.12 - 7.60, p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>All four interpersonal problem areas were applicable to Thai depressed patients.</p

Globular Adiponectin Activates Motility and Regenerative Traits of Muscle Satellite Cells

Regeneration of adult injured skeletal muscle is due to activation of satellite cells, a population of stem cells resident beneath the basal lamina. Thus, information on soluble factors affecting satellite cell activation, as well as migration towards injury and fusion into new myofibers are essential. Here, we show that globular adiponectin (gAd), positively affects several features of muscle satellite cells. gAd activates satellite cells to exit quiescence and increases their recruitment towards myotubes. gAd elicits in satellite cells a specific motility program, involving activation of the small GTPase Rac1, as well as expression of Snail and Twist transcription factors driving a proteolytic motility, useful to reach the site of injury. We show that satellite cells produce autocrine full length adiponectin (fAd), which is converted to gAd by activated macrophages. In turns, gAd concurs to attract to the site of injury both satellite cells and macrophages and induces myogenesis in muscle satellite cells. Thus, these findings add a further role for gAd in skeletal muscle, including the hormone among factors participating in muscle regeneration

The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus ‘treatment as usual’ for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed ‘interpersonal psychotherapy’ and only one trial assessed ‘psychodynamic psychotherapy’. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference −3.12 (95% confidence interval −4.39 to −1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with ‘treatment as usual’. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result.We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with ‘treatment as usual’ for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed