Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

761 questions · 801 findings · 50 reviews · Common Mental Disorders

No studies found 125 · 15.6%GRADE not reported 34 · 4.2%Very low 226 · 28.2%Low 232 · 29%Moderate 176 · 22%High 8 · 1%

MI therapy vs control

Financial loss from gambling ‐ comparisons at 0 to 3 months post‐treatment Lower scores indicate reduced financial loss from gambling, and thus positive outcomes1 · patients with pathological and problem gambling
1 finding from 1 review

MI therapy vs control

Frequency of gambling ‐ comparisons at 0 to 3 months post‐treatment Lower scores indicate reduced financial loss from gambling, and thus positive outcomes1 · patients with pathological and problem gambling
1 finding from 1 review

Individual psychological therapy vs another individual psychological therapy

Recovery not achieved according to Morgan and Russell narrow categories or similar ‐ CBT versus IPT or FPDT at end of treatment periods · Adults and older adolescents with anorexia nervosa

Individual psychological therapy showed no clear difference in recovery not achieved according to Morgan and Russell narrow… compared with another individual psychological therapy (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Light therapy vs no light therapy

Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether light therapy changes incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Light therapy vs no light therapy

Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether light therapy changes incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Light therapy vs no light therapy

Overall discontinuation ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether light therapy changes overall discontinuation ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy

Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether infrared light therapy changes incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy

Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether infrared light therapy changes incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infrared light therapy vs no light therapy

Overall discontinuation ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether infrared light therapy changes overall discontinuation ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy

Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether bright white light therapy changes incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy

Incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether bright white light therapy changes incidence of SAD (SIGH‐SAD score ≥ 20) ( compared with infrared light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy

Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether bright white light therapy changes incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( compared with infrared light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bright white light therapy vs infrared light therapy

Overall discontinuation ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether bright white light therapy changes overall discontinuation ( compared with infrared light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy

Incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether bright white light therapy changes incidence of severe SAD (SIGH‐SAD‐SR (≥ 40)) ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bright white light therapy vs no light therapy

Overall discontinuation ( · All participants were known SAD patients who had been successfully treated with conventional light therapy in previous winters

It is very uncertain whether bright white light therapy changes overall discontinuation ( compared with no light therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review