Evidence Hub

Efficacy and acceptability of cognitive-behavioral therapy and serotonin reuptake inhibitors for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: a network meta-analysis

Matti Cervin, Joseph F. McGuire, Johann M. D'Souza, A. D. De Nadai, Kristina Aspvall, Wayne K. Goodman, Per Andrén, Sophie C. Schneider et al.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 2024

37 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are recommended treatments for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but their relative efficacy and acceptability have not been comprehensively examined. Further, it remains unclear whether the efficacy of in-person CBT is conserved when delivered in other formats, such as over telephone/webcam or as Internet-delivered CBT (ICBT).

METHODS

PubMed, PsycINFO, trial registries, and previous systematic reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT (in-person, webcam/telephone-delivered, or ICBT) or SRIs with control conditions or each other. Network meta-analyses were conducted to examine efficacy (post-treatment Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation). Confidence in effect estimates was evaluated with CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis).

RESULTS

Thirty eligible RCTs and 35 contrasts comprising 2,057 youth with OCD were identified. In-person CBT was significantly more efficacious than ICBT, waitlist, relaxation training, and pill placebo (MD range: 3.95-11.10; CINeMA estimate of confidence: moderate) but did not differ significantly from CBT delivered via webcam/telephone (MD: 0.85 [-2.51, 4.21]; moderate), SRIs (MD: 3.07 [-0.07, 6.20]; low), or the combination of in-person CBT and SRIs (MD: -1.20 [-5.29, 2.91]; low). SRIs were significantly more efficacious than pill placebo (MD: 4.59…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free