Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for prevention and time to depressive relapse: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica
January 1, 2021
Mark McCartney et al. (6 authors)
Journal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the long-term effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with other strategies for preventing depressive relapse and delaying time to relapse.

Results Summary

MBCT showed statistically significant advantages over treatment as usual (TAU) and placebo in preventing depressive relapse and delaying time to relapse. No significant differences were found between MBCT and active treatments for relapse rate or time to relapse.

Population

Individuals with a history of depression (2077 participants across 14 RCTs).

Effective Dosage

Not specified

Duration

Follow-up assessments occurred at 12 months or longer.

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (7)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
decrease
relapse of depression
participants
RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98
showed statistically significant advantages
#1
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
decrease
time to relapse of depression
participants
HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88
showed statistically significant advantages
#2
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
decrease
time to relapse of depression
participants
HR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67
showed statistically significant advantages
#3
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
decrease
relapse of depression
-
-
is more effective
#4
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
decrease
time to relapse of depression
-
-
has statistically significant advantages
#5
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
no change
rate of relapse
-
-
No statistically significant differences were observed
#6
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
no change
time to relapse of depression
-
-
No statistically significant differences were observed
#7
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the long-term effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with available strategies for prevention and time to depressive relapse. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched up to June 2019. Studies evaluated MBCT for the management of depression-related outcomes and follow-up assessments occurred at 12 months or longer. RESULTS: Twenty-three publications were included, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data from 14 RCTs including 2077 participants contributed to meta-analysis (MA) and NMA to assess relapse of depression and 13 RCTs with 2017 participants contributed to MA and NMA for time to relapse of depression. NMAs showed statistically significant advantages for MBCT over treatment as usual (TAU) for relapse of depression (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98) and for MBCT over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression (MBCT vs TAU: HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88; MBCT vs placebo: HR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67). Subgroup meta-analysis of relapse of depression by previous number of depressive episodes showed similar results between subgroups. Subgroup meta-analysis by the use or not of booster sessions suggests these may lead to improved effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: MBCT is more effective than TAU in the long-term in preventing relapse of depression and has statistically significant advantages over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression. No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Cognitive Behavioral TherapyHumansMindfulnessNetwork Meta-AnalysisRecurrenceSecondary PreventionTreatment Outcome
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy85/10
Quality90/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations29
Citations/Year7.3
Relative Citation Ratio3.51
NIH Percentile88%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score2.87
Normalized Score0.72
Related Supplements