Dataset Information

Telepsychiatry versus face-to-face treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries.

Aims

To compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment.

Method

A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable outcomes, such as all-cause discontinuation and safety/tolerability.

Results

We identified 32 studies (n = 3592 participants) across 11 mental illnesses. Disease-specific analyses showed that telepsychiatry was superior to face-to-face treatment regarding symptom improvement for depressive disorders (k = 6 studies, n = 561; standardised mean difference s.m.d. = -0.325, 95% CI -0.640 to -0.011, P = 0.043), whereas face-to-face treatment was superior to telepsychiatry for eating disorder (k = 1, n = 128; s.m.d. = 0.368, 95% CI 0.018-0.717, P = 0.039). No significant difference was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 26, n = 2290; P = 0.248). Telepsychiatry had significantly fewer all-cause discontinuations than face-to-face treatment for mild cognitive impairment (k = 1, n = 61; risk ratio RR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.312-0.975, P = 0.040), whereas the opposite was seen for substance misuse (k = 1, n = 85; RR = 37.41, 95% CI 2.356-594.1, P = 0.010). No significant difference regarding all-cause discontinuation was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 27, n = 3341; P = 0.564).

Conclusions

Telepsychiatry achieved a symptom improvement effect for various psychiatric disorders similar to that of face-to-face treatment. However, some superiorities/inferiorities were seen across a few specific psychiatric disorders, suggesting that its efficacy may vary according to disease type.

SUBMITTER: Hagi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10895502 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Telepsychiatry versus face-to-face treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Hagi Katsuhiko K Kurokawa Shunya S Takamiya Akihiro A Fujikawa Mayu M Kinoshita Shotaro S Iizuka Mari M Furukawa Shota S Eguchi Yoko Y Kishimoto Taishiro T

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 20230901 3

<h4>Background</h4>The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries.<h4>Aims</h4>To compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment.<h4>Method</h4>A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes incl ...[more]

PMID: 37655816

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).Results24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).ConclusionVery low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021269997.

Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify the overall effects of bariatric surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for obesity.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis based on a random effects model.Data sourcesSearches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to December 2012 regardless of language or publication status.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies were randomised controlled trials with ≥ 6 months of follow-up that included individuals with a body mass index ≥ 30, compared current bariatric surgery techniques with non-surgical treatment, and reported on body weight, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life, or adverse events.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 11 studies with 796 individuals (range of mean body mass index at baseline 30-52). Individuals allocated to bariatric surgery lost more body weight (mean difference -26 kg (95% confidence interval -31 to -21)) compared with non-surgical treatment, had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes (relative risk 22.1 (3.2 to 154.3) in a complete case analysis; 5.3 (1.8 to 15.8) in a conservative analysis assuming diabetes remission in all non-surgically treated individuals with missing data) and metabolic syndrome (relative risk 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) in complete case analysis; 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3) in conservative analysis), greater improvements in quality of life and reductions in medicine use (no pooled data). Plasma triglyceride concentrations decreased more (mean difference -0.7 mmol/L (-1.0 to -0.4) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations increased more (mean difference 0.21 mmol/L (0.1 to 0.3)). Changes in blood pressure and total or low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations were not significantly different. There were no cardiovascular events or deaths reported after bariatric surgery. The most common adverse events after bariatric surgery were iron deficiency anaemia (15% of individuals undergoing malabsorptive bariatric surgery) and reoperations (8%).ConclusionsCompared with non-surgical treatment of obesity, bariatric surgery leads to greater body weight loss and higher remission rates of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. However, results are limited to two years of follow-up and based on a small number of studies and individuals.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42012003317 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Project description:BackgroundAs digital mental health delivery becomes increasingly prominent, a solid evidence base regarding its efficacy is needed.ObjectiveThis study aims to synthesize evidence on the comparative efficacy of systemic psychotherapy interventions provided via digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities.MethodsWe followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX and conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials comparing mental, behavioral, and somatic outcomes of systemic psychotherapy interventions using self- and therapist-guided digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials. Where appropriate, we calculated standardized mean differences and risk ratios. We calculated separate mean differences for nonaggregated analysis.ResultsWe screened 3633 references and included 12 articles reporting on 4 trials (N=754). Participants were youths with poor diabetic control, traumatic brain injuries, increased risk behavior likelihood, and parents of youths with anorexia nervosa. A total of 56 outcomes were identified. Two trials provided digital intervention delivery via videoconferencing: one via an interactive graphic interface and one via a web-based program. In total, 23% (14/60) of risk of bias judgments were high risk, 42% (25/60) were some concerns, and 35% (21/60) were low risk. Due to heterogeneity in the data, meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate for 96% (54/56) of outcomes, which were interpreted qualitatively instead. Nonaggregated analyses of mean differences and CIs between delivery modalities yielded mixed results, with superiority of the digital delivery modality for 18% (10/56) of outcomes, superiority of the face-to-face delivery modality for 5% (3/56) of outcomes, equivalence between delivery modalities for 2% (1/56) of outcomes, and neither superiority of one modality nor equivalence between modalities for 75% (42/56) of outcomes. Consequently, for most outcome measures, no indication of superiority or equivalence regarding the relative efficacy of either delivery modality can be made at this stage. We further meta-analytically compared digital versus face-to-face delivery modalities for attrition (risk ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.52-2.03; P=.93) and number of sessions attended (standardized mean difference -0.11; 95% CI -1.13 to -0.91; P=.83), finding no significant differences between modalities, while CIs falling outside the range of the minimal important difference indicate that equivalence cannot be determined at this stage.ConclusionsEvidence on digital and face-to-face modalities for systemic psychotherapy interventions is largely heterogeneous, limiting conclusions regarding the differential efficacy of digital and face-to-face delivery. Nonaggregated and meta-analytic analyses did not indicate the superiority of either delivery condition. More research is needed to conclude if digital and face-to-face delivery modalities are generally equivalent or if-and in which contexts-one modality is superior to another.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022335013; https://tinyurl.com/nprder8h.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, Lilacs, conference proceedings, and bibliographies with no restrictions on language, study year, or publication status. Review methods Search, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality independently performed in duplicate. Primary outcomes were relapse and overall failure resulting from primary failure or relapse. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a fixed effect model.Results30 trials and 77 treatment arms were included. Overall failure was significantly higher with doxycycline-rifampicin compared to doxycycline-streptomycin, mainly due to a higher rate of relapse (relative risk 2.80, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.36; 13 trials, without heterogeneity). Results were consistent among patients with bacteraemia and complicated brucellosis. Doxycycline-streptomycin resulted in a significantly higher rate of failure than doxycycline-rifampicin-aminoglycoside (triple drug regimen) (2.50, 1.26 to 5.00; two trials). Gentamicin was not inferior to streptomycin (1.45, 0.52 to 4.00 for failure; two trials). Quinolones combined with rifampicin were significantly less effective than doxycycline combined with rifampicin or streptomycin (1.83, 1.11 to 3.02, for failure; five trials). Monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of failure than combined treatment when administered for a similar duration (2.56, 1.55 to 4.23; five trials). Treatment for six weeks or more offered an advantage over shorter treatment durations.ConclusionsThere are significant differences in effectiveness between currently recommended treatment regimens for brucellosis. The preferred treatment should be with dual or triple regimens including an aminoglycoside.

Project description:BackgroundMental disorders are a leading cause of distress and disability worldwide. To meet patient demand, there is a need for increased access to high-quality, evidence-based mental health care. Telehealth has become well established in the treatment of illnesses, including mental health conditions.ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct a robust evidence synthesis to assess whether there is evidence of differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for the management of less common mental and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy.MethodsIn this systematic review, we included randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth (telephone, video, or both) versus the face-to-face delivery of psychotherapy for less common mental health conditions and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. The psychotherapy delivered had to be comparable between the telehealth and face-to-face groups, and it had to be delivered by general practitioners, primary care nurses, or allied health staff (such as psychologists and counselors). Patient (symptom severity, overall improvement in psychological symptoms, and function), process (working alliance and client satisfaction), and financial (cost) outcomes were included.ResultsA total of 12 randomized controlled trials were included, with 931 patients in aggregate; therapies included cognitive behavioral and family therapies delivered in populations encompassing addiction disorders, eating disorders, childhood mental health problems, and chronic conditions. Telehealth was delivered by video in 7 trials, by telephone in 3 trials, and by both in 1 trial, and the delivery mode was unclear in 1 trial. The risk of bias for the 12 trials was low or unclear for most domains, except for the lack of the blinding of participants, owing to the nature of the comparison. There were no significant differences in symptom severity between telehealth and face-to-face therapy immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27) or at any other follow-up time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences immediately after treatment between telehealth and face-to-face care delivery on any of the other outcomes meta-analyzed, including overall improvement (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.39), function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.42), working alliance client (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.57), working alliance therapist (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.59), and client satisfaction (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.53), or at any other time point (3, 6, and 12 months).ConclusionsWith regard to effectively treating less common mental health conditions and physical conditions requiring psychological support, there is insufficient evidence of a difference between psychotherapy delivered via telehealth and the same therapy delivered face-to-face. However, there was no includable evidence in this review for some serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and further high-quality research is needed to determine whether telehealth is a viable, equivalent treatment option for these conditions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of four drug (quadruple) versus three drug (triple) combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV, and explore the implications of existing trials for clinical practice and research.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from March 2001 to December 2016 (updated search in PubMed and EMBASE up to June 2018); and reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing quadruple with triple combination antiretroviral therapies in treatment naive people with HIV and evaluating at least one effectiveness or safety outcome.Review methodsOutcomes of interest included undetectable HIV-1 RNA, CD4 T cell count, virological failure, new AIDS defining events, death, and severe adverse effects. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.ResultsTwelve trials (including 4251 people with HIV) were eligible. Quadruple and triple combination antiretroviral therapies had similar effects on all relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes, with no point estimates favouring quadruple therapy. With the triple therapy as the reference group, the risk ratio was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05) for undetectable HIV-1 RNA, 1.00 (0.90 to 1.11) for virological failure, 1.17 (0.84 to 1.63) for new AIDS defining events, 1.23 (0.74 to 2.05) for death, and 1.09 (0.89 to 1.33) for severe adverse effects. The mean difference in CD4 T cell count increase between the two groups was -19.55 cells/μL (-43.02 to 3.92). In general, the results were similar, regardless of the specific regimens of combination antiretroviral therapies, and were robust in all subgroup and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionIn this study, effects of quadruple combination antiretroviral therapy were not better than triple combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment naive people with HIV. This finding lends support to current guidelines recommending the triple regimen as first line treatment. Further trials on this topic should be conducted only when new research is justified by adequate systematic reviews of the existing evidence. However, this study cannot exclude the possibility that quadruple cART would be better than triple cART when new classes of antiretroviral drugs are made available.

Project description:BackgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.MethodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Dataset Information

Telepsychiatry versus face-to-face treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background

Aims

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Telepsychiatry versus face-to-face treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets