Can mindfulness-based interventions reduce PTSD symptoms? An umbrella review

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Branislav Jovanovic , Dana Rose Garfin
{"title":"Can mindfulness-based interventions reduce PTSD symptoms? An umbrella review","authors":"Branislav Jovanovic ,&nbsp;Dana Rose Garfin","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2024.102859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating, often chronic condition with substantial cross-national lifetime prevalence. Although mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may help reduce PTSD symptoms, efficacy results are inconsistent. Despite many systematic reviews (SRs) examining MBIs for PTSD, SR quality has been neither evaluated nor synthesized. We conducted an umbrella review to summarize and evaluate existing evidence regarding MBIs for PTSD, identifying 69 SRs (27 meta-analyses), consisting of 83 primary studies. Using AMSTAR2 (a valid SR quality assessment tool), we evaluated each SR on key domains relevant to methodological rigor and rated the confidence of inferences. Results found SRs were 65.2% non-rigorous, 27.5% likely rigorous, and 7.2% rigorous; common limitations included inadequate risk of bias assessment, extractions not completed in duplicate, and lack of pre-registration, highlighting the need for higher quality SRs. We then performed a meta-meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of MBIs to reduce PTSD symptoms, yielding a medium effect size (SMD=0.41<em>, p &lt;</em> .001<em>)</em>, derived from 22 meta-analyses (with replicable data) and 35 unique articles. Analyses were consistent across control conditions and MBI type (first-generation/narrow [i.e., MBIs with well-established protocols]) versus broad (i.e., other MBI types), comparable with second-line treatments (e.g., pharmacotherapy). Findings were narratively synthesized; areas for methodological improvements in MBI research were identified.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102859"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000355/pdfft?md5=bad8e237cbaeee04f8e67bc17987ba26&pid=1-s2.0-S0887618524000355-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000355","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating, often chronic condition with substantial cross-national lifetime prevalence. Although mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may help reduce PTSD symptoms, efficacy results are inconsistent. Despite many systematic reviews (SRs) examining MBIs for PTSD, SR quality has been neither evaluated nor synthesized. We conducted an umbrella review to summarize and evaluate existing evidence regarding MBIs for PTSD, identifying 69 SRs (27 meta-analyses), consisting of 83 primary studies. Using AMSTAR2 (a valid SR quality assessment tool), we evaluated each SR on key domains relevant to methodological rigor and rated the confidence of inferences. Results found SRs were 65.2% non-rigorous, 27.5% likely rigorous, and 7.2% rigorous; common limitations included inadequate risk of bias assessment, extractions not completed in duplicate, and lack of pre-registration, highlighting the need for higher quality SRs. We then performed a meta-meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of MBIs to reduce PTSD symptoms, yielding a medium effect size (SMD=0.41, p < .001), derived from 22 meta-analyses (with replicable data) and 35 unique articles. Analyses were consistent across control conditions and MBI type (first-generation/narrow [i.e., MBIs with well-established protocols]) versus broad (i.e., other MBI types), comparable with second-line treatments (e.g., pharmacotherapy). Findings were narratively synthesized; areas for methodological improvements in MBI research were identified.

正念干预能否减轻创伤后应激障碍症状?综述
创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)是一种使人衰弱的疾病,通常是一种慢性病,在不同国家的终生患病率都很高。尽管正念干预(MBIs)可能有助于减轻创伤后应激障碍症状,但疗效结果并不一致。尽管有许多系统综述(SR)对创伤后应激障碍的 MBI 进行了研究,但对 SR 的质量既没有进行评估,也没有进行综合。我们进行了一项总综述,总结并评估了有关创伤后应激障碍 MBIs 的现有证据,确定了 69 篇 SR(27 篇荟萃分析),包括 83 项主要研究。我们使用AMSTAR2(一种有效的SR质量评估工具)对每项SR进行了方法学严谨性相关关键领域的评估,并对推论的可信度进行了评级。结果发现,65.2%的研究报告不严谨,27.5%的研究报告可能严谨,7.2%的研究报告严谨;常见的局限性包括偏倚风险评估不足、提取工作未重复完成以及缺乏预先登记,这突出表明需要更高质量的研究报告。然后,我们进行了一项荟萃-荟萃分析,以估算 MBIs 在减轻创伤后应激障碍症状方面的疗效,结果得出中等效应大小(SMD=0.41.001,来自 22 项荟萃分析(数据可重复)和 35 篇独特的文章)。不同对照条件和MBI类型(第一代/狭义[即具有完善方案的MBI])与广义(即其他MBI类型)的分析结果一致,可与二线治疗(如药物治疗)相媲美。对研究结果进行了叙述性综合;确定了在 MBI 研究中需要改进方法的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anxiety Disorders is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes research papers on all aspects of anxiety disorders for individuals of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Manuscripts that focus on disorders previously classified as anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the new category of illness anxiety disorder, are also within the scope of the journal. The research areas of focus include traditional, behavioral, cognitive, and biological assessment; diagnosis and classification; psychosocial and psychopharmacological treatment; genetics; epidemiology; and prevention. The journal welcomes theoretical and review articles that significantly contribute to current knowledge in the field. It is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Elsevier, BIOBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, BRS Data, Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pascal Francis, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信