4.4 Review

Treating child and adolescent anxiety effectively: Overview of systematic reviews

期刊

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 80-94

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.09.006

关键词

Anxiety; Child; Adolescent; Clinical decision making; Therapeutics; Review

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [KA1-119793]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about child and adolescent anxiety treatment options (psycho social; medication; combination; web/computer-based treatment) to support evidence informed decision-making. Three questions were addressed: (i) Is the treatment more effective than passive controls? (ii) Is there evidence that the treatment is superior to or non-inferior to (i.e., as good as) active controls? (iii) What is the quality of evidence for the treatment? Pre-specified inclusion criteria identified high quality systematic reviews (2000-2015) reporting treatment effects on anxiety diagnosis and symptom severity. Evidence quality (EQ) was rated using Oxford evidence levels [EQ1 (highest); EQ5 (lowest)]. Twenty-two of 39 eligible reviews were high quality (AMSTAR score >= 3/5). CBT (individual or group, with or without parents) was more effective than passive controls (EQ1). CBT effects compared to active controls were mixed (EQ1). SSRI/SNRI were more effective than placebo (EQ1) but comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. EQ for combination therapy could not be determined. RCTs of web/computer-based interventions showed mixed results (EQ1). CBM/ABM was not more efficacious than active controls (EQ1). No other interventions could be rated. High quality RCTs sup port treatment with CBT and medication. Findings for combination and web/computer-based treatment are encouraging but further RCTs are required. Head-to-head comparisons of active treatment options are needed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据