Cochrane · systematic review · CD009501
Psychological interventions for co‐occurring depression and substance use disorders
Hides, L, Quinn, C, Stoyanov, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
Drugs and AlcoholAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
11
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 11 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Integrated CBT compared with Twelve Step Facilitation for co‐occurring depression and substance use disorders
Population: co‐occurring depression and substance use disorders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Depression score Integrated CBT vs Twelve Step Facilitation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 212 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Depression score Integrated CBT vs Twelve Step Facilitation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 181 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Percent of days abstinent Integrated CBT vs Twelve Step Facilitation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 220 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Percent of days abstinent Integrated CBT vs Twelve Step Facilitation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 189 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Treatment retention Integrated CBT vs Twelve Step Facilitation | RR 0.95 [0.72, 1.25] | 2 studies · 296 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of treatment sessions attended Scale from: 0 to 36 Integrated CBT vs Twelve Step Facilitation | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 270 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT‐D) compared with Other Psychological Interventions for co‐occurring depression and substance use disorders
Population: Individuals experiencing co‐occurring depression and substance use disorders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Depression score Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT‐D) vs Other Psychological Interventions | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Depression score Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT‐D) vs Other Psychological Interventions | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Percentage of days abstinent Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT‐D) vs Other Psychological Interventions | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Substance use ‐ relapse Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT‐D) vs Other Psychological Interventions | RR 0.67 [0.3, 1.5] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Treatment retention Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT‐D) vs Other Psychological Interventions | RR 1 [0.81, 1.23] | 2 studies · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |