Efficacy and acceptability of group cognitive behavioral therapy for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

尽管抑郁症的治疗指南将群体CBT置于低强度和高强度的循证干预之间，但其有效性仍然未知。我们的目的是系统地回顾与四种强度的社会心理干预相比，群体CBT对抑郁症患者的疗效和可接受性的证据。从7,953份记录中，我们确定了35项rct，将CBT组与非活动（k = 30）、低强度（k = 2）、中强度（k = 8）和高强度（k = 1）干预进行比较。与非主动对照组相比，组CBT具有更好的疗效（SMD = -0.68）和相似的可接受性。合并结果显示，与中等强度干预相比，组内CBT治疗有少量但不显著的过量（SMD = -0.21）。超过60%的研究没有报告足够的信息来判断选择和选择性报告偏差。这些结果表明，与低强度和高强度干预相比，需要对群体CBT进行高质量的试验。

Despite treatment guidelines for depression placing group CBT between low- and high-intensity evidence-based interventions, the validity of the placement remains unknown. We aimed to systematically review evidence for the efficacy and acceptability of group CBT in patients with depression compared to four intensity levels of psychosocial interventions. From 7,953 records, we identified 35 RCTs that compared group CBT to non-active (k = 30), low-intensity (k = 2), middle-intensity (k = 8), and high-intensity (k = 1) interventions. Group CBT had a superior efficacy (SMD = -0.68) and a similar acceptability compared to non-active controls. Pooled results showed a small but non-significant excess of group CBT relative to middle-intensity interventions (SMD = -0.21). Over 60% of studies did not report enough information to judge selection and selective reporting bias. These results suggest the need for high-quality trials of group CBT compared to low- and high-intensity interventions.