Hypnotherapy For Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review Of Randomized Clinical Trials
Souza, F. L.; Moura, M. S.; Elkins, G.; Silva, J. V. A.
Show abstract
Introduction: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is one of the most debilitating diseases worldwide and has seen a significant increase in diagnoses during the pandemic, demanding more and better therapeutic tools to manage the post-pandemic scenario. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the last 20 years of clinical research on Hypnotherapy (HT) to determine whether this intervention has evidence to support its recommendation for the treatment of MDD. Methods: This review included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving adult populations diagnosed with MDD, regardless of the severity level (mild, moderate, or severe) according to any validated diagnostic criteria, compared to a control group (active treatment or none), with any follow-up duration and free access to the manuscript. The bibliographic survey was planned to be as sensitive as possible, conducted across seven distinct databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, ScieELO, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). To identify potentially eligible studies in the grey literature, researchers also searched the U.S. National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov). The risk of bias was assessed by two independent investigators using Cochranes revised tool (RoB 2), and the final judgment was made by consensus. To better analyze the included studies, the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Due to the lack of comparable studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis; therefore, the studies were graphically displayed in Descriptive Forest Plots. Results: There is very low-quality evidence suggesting that hypnosis-based interventions may reduce the severity of depression, which precludes the clinical recommendation of this intervention for patients in the real world, pending the production of better evidence of effectiveness and safety, although no evidence of significant adverse effects was found. Other: This review was pre-registered with PROSPERO and can be accessed using the registration number CRD42023409631.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Noninvasive brain stimulation combined with evidence-based psychotherapy for psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis of optimal implementation parameters 93%
- From Feasibility to Utility: A Meta-Analysis of Amygdala-Neurofeedback 92%
- From smartphone data to clinically relevant predictions: A systematic review of digital phenotyping methods in depression 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 97%
- Interventions Promoting Recovery from Depression for Patients Transitioning from Outpatient Mental Health Services to Primary Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review 96%
- Systematic Review Protocol: The Effects of Theory-Based Interventions for Self-Help Practices in the Management of Mild to Moderate Depression 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Remote virtual reality assessment elucidates self-blame-related action tendencies in depression 93%
- Unilateral and Bilateral Theta Burst Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Follow up on a Naturalistic Observation Study 92%
- Estimating heterogeneity of treatment effect in psychiatric clinical trials 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Self-blaming emotions in major depression: a randomised pilot trial comparing fMRI neurofeedback training with self-guided psychological strategies (NeuroMooD) 93%
- Approaches to improve mental health care for autistic children and young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
- A single dose of lamotrigine induces a positive memory bias in healthy volunteers 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.