Loss of PTSD Diagnosis in Response to Evidence-Based Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 22.5 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Tiffany Milligan,Derek Smolenski,Jose Lara-Ruiz,Marija S Kelber
{"title":"Loss of PTSD Diagnosis in Response to Evidence-Based Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Tiffany Milligan,Derek Smolenski,Jose Lara-Ruiz,Marija S Kelber","doi":"10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance\r\nIn recent decades, evidence-based psychotherapies to treat posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been developed with robust evidence bases. However, efficacy observed in clinical trials is not always directly applicable to clinical practice.\r\n\r\nObjective\r\nTo estimate the percentage of patients in both military and veteran (hereafter milvet) and nonmilvet populations that lose their PTSD diagnosis after treatment.\r\n\r\nData Sources\r\nWe used the PTSD Repository to identify studies with adults with a DSM-IV/DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis based on a validated assessment. The repository, maintained by the US National Center for PTSD, is continually updated with randomized clinical trials and includes studies published from January 1988 on.\r\n\r\nStudy Selection\r\nFor eligibility, PTSD had to be the primary treatment target, with psychotherapy applied as monotreatment. Eligible studies reported the number of participants who did not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD posttreatment. When this review was initiated (October 2023), the repository contained 496 unique studies. Data analysis was completed from October 2023 to June 2024.\r\n\r\nData Extraction and Synthesis\r\nThe repository follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines and uses Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate diagnosis loss and incorporated milvet status and sex as covariates.\r\n\r\nMain Outcomes and Measures\r\nThe primary outcome was the proportion of participants who no longer met criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD posttreatment as assessed by a validated instrument.\r\n\r\nResults\r\nWe included 34 randomized clinical trials (N = 3208 participants). Point estimates of diagnosis loss across trauma-focused treatments for nonmilvet samples ranged from 65% to 86%. Milvet samples had lower proportions of diagnosis loss in studies of cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure compared to nonmilvet samples, ranging from 44% to 50%. There was substantial overlap between the covariates of milvet status and sex. An exploratory analysis identified eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as having the highest proportion of diagnosis loss, but there was substantial heterogeneity, and none of the studies were milvet-focused or conducted in the US. Also, 95% confidence intervals partially overlapped for all trauma-focused treatment estimates.\r\n\r\nConclusions and Relevance\r\nThis systematic review and meta-analysis contributes to the substantial literature on psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD by meta-analyzing the probabilities of diagnosis loss for each psychotherapy. Diagnosis loss data are a relatively straightforward way to discuss potential benefits when initiating a therapy or when discussing potential barriers to progress in treatment.","PeriodicalId":14800,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Psychiatry","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":22.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0695","RegionNum":1,"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

Importance In recent decades, evidence-based psychotherapies to treat posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been developed with robust evidence bases. However, efficacy observed in clinical trials is not always directly applicable to clinical practice. Objective To estimate the percentage of patients in both military and veteran (hereafter milvet) and nonmilvet populations that lose their PTSD diagnosis after treatment. Data Sources We used the PTSD Repository to identify studies with adults with a DSM-IV/DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis based on a validated assessment. The repository, maintained by the US National Center for PTSD, is continually updated with randomized clinical trials and includes studies published from January 1988 on. Study Selection For eligibility, PTSD had to be the primary treatment target, with psychotherapy applied as monotreatment. Eligible studies reported the number of participants who did not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD posttreatment. When this review was initiated (October 2023), the repository contained 496 unique studies. Data analysis was completed from October 2023 to June 2024. Data Extraction and Synthesis The repository follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines and uses Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate diagnosis loss and incorporated milvet status and sex as covariates. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who no longer met criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD posttreatment as assessed by a validated instrument. Results We included 34 randomized clinical trials (N = 3208 participants). Point estimates of diagnosis loss across trauma-focused treatments for nonmilvet samples ranged from 65% to 86%. Milvet samples had lower proportions of diagnosis loss in studies of cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure compared to nonmilvet samples, ranging from 44% to 50%. There was substantial overlap between the covariates of milvet status and sex. An exploratory analysis identified eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as having the highest proportion of diagnosis loss, but there was substantial heterogeneity, and none of the studies were milvet-focused or conducted in the US. Also, 95% confidence intervals partially overlapped for all trauma-focused treatment estimates. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis contributes to the substantial literature on psychotherapeutic treatments for PTSD by meta-analyzing the probabilities of diagnosis loss for each psychotherapy. Diagnosis loss data are a relatively straightforward way to discuss potential benefits when initiating a therapy or when discussing potential barriers to progress in treatment.
创伤后应激障碍诊断丧失对循证治疗的反应:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
近几十年来,以证据为基础的治疗创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的心理疗法已经发展起来。然而,在临床试验中观察到的疗效并不总是直接适用于临床实践。目的估计军人和退伍军人(以下简称退伍军人)和非退伍军人在治疗后失去PTSD诊断的比例。数据来源我们使用创伤后应激障碍知识库来识别基于有效评估的DSM-IV/DSM-5 PTSD诊断的成人研究。该资料库由美国国家创伤后应激障碍研究中心维护,不断更新随机临床试验,包括1988年1月以来发表的研究。研究选择为了获得资格,PTSD必须是主要治疗目标,心理治疗作为单一治疗。符合条件的研究报告了治疗后不符合PTSD诊断标准的参与者数量。当审查开始时(2023年10月),存储库包含496个独特的研究。数据分析于2023年10月至2024年6月完成。数据提取和综合数据库遵循系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)报告指南,并使用Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0。我们使用混合效应逻辑回归模型来估计诊断损失,并将身体状况和性别作为协变量。主要结果和测量主要结果是经验证的仪器评估的治疗后不再符合PTSD诊断标准的参与者的比例。结果纳入34项随机临床试验(N = 3208名受试者)。对于非milvet样本,创伤集中治疗的诊断损失点估计从65%到86%不等。与非Milvet样本相比,Milvet样本在认知加工治疗和长时间暴露的研究中诊断损失的比例较低,从44%到50%不等。milvet状态和性别的协变量之间存在大量重叠。一项探索性分析发现,眼动脱敏和再加工是诊断损失比例最高的,但存在很大的异质性,而且没有一项研究以milvet为重点,也没有在美国进行。此外,95%置信区间部分重叠的所有创伤为重点的治疗估计。结论和相关性本系统综述和荟萃分析通过荟萃分析每种心理治疗的诊断损失概率,为PTSD的心理治疗提供了大量文献。在开始治疗或讨论治疗进展的潜在障碍时,诊断损失数据是讨论潜在益处的相对直接的方法。
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
JAMA Psychiatry
JAMA Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
30.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
233
期刊介绍: JAMA Psychiatry is a global, peer-reviewed journal catering to clinicians, scholars, and research scientists in psychiatry, mental health, behavioral science, and related fields. The Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry originated in 1919, splitting into two journals in 1959: Archives of Neurology and Archives of General Psychiatry. In 2013, these evolved into JAMA Neurology and JAMA Psychiatry, respectively. JAMA Psychiatry is affiliated with the JAMA Network, a group of peer-reviewed medical and specialty publications.
×
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