Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta‐analysis

Alessandro Pompoli; Toshi A Furukawa; Hissei Imai; Aran Tajika; Orestis Efthimiou; Georgia Salanti

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011004.pub2

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Terapias psicológicas para el trastorno de pánico con o sin agorafobia en adultos: un meta‐análisis en red

Información

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011004.pub2 Copiar DOI

Base de datos:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Versión publicada:

13 abril 2016see what's new

Tipo:

Intervention

Etapa:

Review

Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

Grupo Cochrane de Trastornos mentales comunes

Copyright:

Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

Alessandro Pompoli

Correspondencia a: Private practice, no academic affiliations, Malcesine, Italy

[email protected]
Toshi A Furukawa

Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan
Hissei Imai

Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan
Aran Tajika

Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan
Orestis Efthimiou

Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece
Georgia Salanti

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM) & Bern Institute of Primary Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Contributions of authors

TAF and AP conceived the study.

AP led the project under TAF supervision.

AP, TAF and GS worked on the protocol; HI, AT and OE provided suggestions and input.

GS and OE performed the statistical analyses.

AP and TAF worked on the review; HI, AT, OE and GS provided suggestions and input.

All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the review.

Declarations of interest

AP has no competing interests.

TAF has received honoraria for speaking at CME meetings sponsored by Asahi Kasei, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mochida, MSD, Otsuka, Pfizer, Shionogi and Tanabe‐Mitsubishi. He is a diplomate of the Academy of Cognitive Therapy. He has received royalties from Igaku‐Shoin, Seiwa‐Shoten and Nihon Bunka Kagaku‐sha. He is on the advisory board for Sekisui Chemicals and Takeda Science Foundation. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, and the Japan Foundation for Neuroscience and Mental Health have funded his research projects.

HI has no competing interests.

AT has received honoraria for speaking at a meeting sponsored by Eli Lilly.

OE has no competing interests.

GS has no competing interests.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 Apr 13

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta‐analysis

Review

Alessandro Pompoli, Toshi A Furukawa, Hissei Imai, Aran Tajika, Orestis Efthimiou, Georgia Salanti

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011004.pub2

2014 Feb 27

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Protocol

Alessandro Pompoli, Toshi A Furukawa, Hissei Imai, Aran Tajika, Orestis Efthimiou, Georgia Salanti

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011004

Differences between protocol and review

We first planned to use scale endpoint data, which typically cannot have negative values and are easier to interpret from a clinical point of view. However, as a post hoc decision, we decided to use change data in an attempt to reduce the amount of heterogeneity due to the baseline imbalance found across studies.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans;

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Figure 1

Ideal network of included treatment and control conditions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Study selection process: PRISMA flow diagram

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

'Risk of bias' summary. Note that we left the boxes empty when the RoB assessment was not applicable (e.g. in the case of incomplete outcome data in the long term when the study did not report any long term measure that could be included in the analyses).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

Short‐term remission: network plot

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 6

Short‐term remission: forest plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 7

Short‐term remission: forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 8

Short‐term remission: funnel plot for the comparison CBT vs WL

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 9

Short‐term remission: funnel plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 10

Short‐term remission: contour‐enhanced funnel plot for the comparison CBT vs WL

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 11

Short‐term remission: inconsistency factors for the network

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 12

Short‐term response: network plot

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 13

Short‐term response: forest plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 14

Short‐term response: forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 15

Short‐term response: funnel plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 16

Short‐term response: funnel plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 17

Short‐term response: inconsistency factors for the network

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 18

Short‐term dropouts: network plot

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 19

Short‐term dropouts: forest plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 20

Short‐term dropouts: forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 21

Short‐term dropouts: funnel plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 22

Short‐term dropouts: funnel plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 23

Short‐term dropouts: inconsistency factors for the network

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 24

Short‐term improvement: network plot

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 25

Short‐term improvement: forest plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 26

Short‐term improvement: forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 27

Short‐term improvement: funnel plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 28

Short‐term improvement: funnel plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 29

Short‐term improvement: inconsistency factors for the network

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 30

Long‐term remission/response: network plot

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 31

Long‐term remission/response: inconsistency factors for the network

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 32

Subgroup analysis: number of treatment sessions, forest plot for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 33

Subgroup analysis: number of treatment sessions, regression line for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 34

Subgroup analysis: number of treatment sessions, forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 35

Subgroup analysis: number of treatment sessions, regression line for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 36

Subgroup analysis: therapist training, forest plots for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 37

Subgroup analysis: therapist training, forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 38

Subgroup analysis: percentage of agoraphobic patients, regression line for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 39

Subgroup analysis: percentage of depressed patients, regression line for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 40

Subgroup analysis: percentage of drug‐treated patients, regression line for the comparison WL vs CBT

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 41

Sensitivity analyses: network plot for short‐term remission excluding from the analyses group therapy trials

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 42

Sensitivity analyses: forest plot for the comparison WL vs CBT excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 43

Sensitivity analyses: forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 44

Sensitivity analyses: funnel plot for the comparison WL vs CBT excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 45

Sensitivity analyses: forest plot for the comparison CBT vs BT excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 46

Sensitivity analyses: inconsistency factors for the network of short‐term remission excluding from the analyses group therapy trials

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 47

Sensitivity analyses: network plot for short‐term remission excluding from the analyses trials in which a concomitant pharmacotherapy is allowed

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 48

Sensitivity analyses: network plot for short‐term remission excluding from the analyses trials in which pharmacotherapy stabilisation was not required

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to no treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to no treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults
Patient or population: adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia Setting: outpatients Intervention: cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) Comparison: no treatment (NT)
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	No treatment (NT)	Cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT)
Short‐term remission (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 2.78 (0.54 to 14.29)	No direct evidence available: indirect evidence based on 357 participants (2 studies via CT; 5 studies via PT)^a	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3
	36 per 100	61 per 100 (24 to 89)
Short‐term response (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 7.14 (1.25 to 50)	No direct evidence available: indirect evidence based on 357 participants (2 studies via CT; 5 studies via PT)^a	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3
	36 per 100	80 per 100 (42 to 97)
Short‐term dropouts (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 6.25 (0.26 to 100)	No direct evidence available: indirect evidence based on 278 participants (4 studies via PT)^a	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3
	1 per 100 (no events were observed in the available direct evidence: this percentage was assumed in order to calculate the corresponding risk)	6 per 100 (0 to 50)
Long‐term remission/response (follow‐up: mean 12 months)	No data available for this comparison	‐	‐	‐	‐
Short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	The mean short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale in the control group was 0	The mean short‐term improvement, measured on a continuous scale as SMD (NMA results), was ‐0.83 (95% CI ‐1.5 to ‐0.16), indicating a large effect size in favour of CBT	‐	27 participants (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^4,5
Reported ORs are derived (as reciprocal values) from the results of network meta‐analyses presented in Table 1, Table 4 and Table 7 (for ST‐remission and ST‐response we used the results of NMA adjusted for SSE). Reported SMD is derived from the results of network meta‐analysis presented in Table 10. ^aIndirect comparison is performed using all possible intermediate comparisons in the network. For brevity we report the number of studies contributing indirect evidence only via a single intermediate comparator. The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; NMA: network meta‐analysis; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
We downgraded the quality of the evidence one step at a time when one or more of the following criticisms was present: ¹Only indirect evidence is available for this outcome. ²Wide 95% CI. ³The risk of bias of indirect evidence is often unclear. ⁴The risk of bias in the included study was unclear in almost every domain. ⁵Only one study, with a small sample size, available for direct comparison.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to no treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 2. Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to supportive psychotherapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to supportive psychotherapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults
Patient or population: adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia Setting: outpatients Intervention: cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) Comparison: supportive psychotherapy (SP)
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Supportive psychotherapy (SP)	Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)
Short‐term remission (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 0.67 (0.25 to 1.82)	176 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^1,2
	38 per 100	29 per 100 (13 to 52)
Short‐term response (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 1.12 (0.4 to 3.26)	176 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3,4
	32 per 100	34 per 100 (16 to 60)
Short‐term dropouts (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 0.64 (0.28 to 1.43)	176 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3
	46 per 100	35 per 100 (19 to 55)
Long‐term remission/response (follow‐up: mean 12 months)	Study population		OR 2.09 (0.73 to 5.98)	80 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^1,5
	24 per 100	40 per 100 (19 to 65)
Short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	The mean short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale in the control group was 0	The mean short‐term improvement, measured on a continuous scale as SMD (NMA results), was ‐0.05 (95% CI ‐0.56 to 0.47), indicating almost no difference between CBT and SP (the negative value of the point estimate indicates a slight trend in favour of CBT)	‐	152 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^1,2
Reported ORs and SMD are derived from the network meta‐analyses. The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; NMA: network meta‐analysis; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
We downgraded the quality of the evidence one step at a time when one or more of the following criticisms was present: ¹Risk of bias for the included studies was in many cases unclear. ²Only a few studies available for direct comparison. 95% CI still wide and non‐significant even after combining direct and indirect evidence. ³Results were inconsistent across studies, although with wide confidence intervals. ⁴ST‐response data were imputed from the continuous outcome for all the included studies. ⁵Only one study available for direct comparison. 95% CI still wide and non‐significant even after combining direct and indirect evidence.

Summary of findings 2. Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to supportive psychotherapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 3. Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to psychodynamic psychotherapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to psychodynamic psychotherapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults
Patient or population: adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia Setting: outpatients Intervention: cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) Comparison: psychodynamic psychotherapy (PD)
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Psychodynamic psychotherapy (PD)	Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)
Short‐term remission (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 0.94 (0.27 to 3.45)^a	54 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3,4
	44 per 100	43 per 100 (18 to 73)
Short‐term response (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 1.05 (0.28 to 4)^a	54 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3,4
	47 per 100	48 per 100 (20 to 78)
Short‐term dropouts (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	Study population		OR 1.92 (0.56 to 6.67)^a	54 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,2,3,4
	19 per 100	32 per 100 (12 to 62)
Long‐term remission/response (follow‐up: mean 12 months)	Study population		OR 1.25 (0.37 to 4.17)^a	54 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^1,4
	50 per 100	56 per 100 (27 to 81)
Short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale (follow‐up: mean 3 months)	The mean short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale in the control group was 0	The mean short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale in the intervention group was 0.17 standard deviations higher (0.5 lower to 0.83 higher), indicating a small effect size in favour of PD^b	‐	54 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW ^1,3,4,5
^a Reported ORs are derived (as reciprocal values) from the results of network meta‐analyses presented in Table 1, Table 4, Table 7 and Table 13 (for ST‐remission and ST‐response we used the results of NMA adjusted for SSE). ^b Reported SMD is derived from the results of network meta‐analysis presented in Table 10. The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy; CI: confidence interval; NMA: network meta‐analysis; OR: odds ratio; PD: psychodynamic psychotherapy; PT: physiological therapies; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
We downgraded the quality of the evidence one step at a time when one or more of the following criticisms was present: ¹The available direct evidence was affected by a high risk of bias in various important domains. ²Relevant (although non‐significant) inconsistency was found in the loop PD‐CBT‐PT. ³Indirect evidence importantly influences the NMA results. ⁴Only one study available for direct comparison. 95% CI still wide and non‐significant even after combining direct and indirect evidence. ⁵Statistically significant inconsistency was found in the loop PD‐CBT‐PT.

Summary of findings 3. Cognitive behaviour therapy compared to psychodynamic psychotherapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 4. Network meta‐analysis rankings of psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

NMA Rankings of psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults
Patient or population: adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia Setting: outpatients Intervention: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive‐behaviour therapy (CBT), third‐wave CBT (3W), psychodynamic psychotherapy (PD) Comparison: no treatment (NT), waiting list (WL), attention/psychological placebo (APP)
Outcomes	Treatment hierarchy (in descending order)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Short‐term remission (follow up: mean 3 months)	(SP)‐CBT‐PD‐CT‐BT‐PT‐NT‐WL	2491 (40 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^{1 2}
Short‐term response (follow up: mean 3 months)	CBT‐PD‐(SP)‐BT‐PT‐WL‐CT‐NT	2240 (37 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^{1 2}
Short‐term dropouts (follow up: mean 3 months)	NT‐PD‐WL‐3W‐CBT‐APP‐PE‐PT‐CT‐BT‐SP	2535 (47 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^{1 3}
Long‐term remission/response (follow up: mean 12 months)	CBT‐PD‐PT‐BT‐SP‐CT	464 (9 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^{1 3}
Short‐term improvement as measured on a continuous scale (follow up: mean 3 months)	(PD)‐CBT‐SP‐CT‐3W‐BT‐PT‐NT‐WL	2318 (57 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW ^{1 3}
Reported rankings are based on absolute SUCRA values, which are derived from network meta‐analyses (NMA). The ranking of treatments reported in parenthesis must be interpreted with caution, because the evidence supporting those rankings is either too scarce or hampered by relevant inconsistency. The assessment of quality of evidence has been made by adapting the GRADE tool, designed for pairwise meta‐analyses, to network meta‐analyses, as suggested in Salanti 2014.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
¹ Downgraded for study limitations because the risk of bias was unclear or high in more than one important domain for many of the included studies. ² Downgraded for imprecision because too few comparisons remained clinically important after adjusting the results of NMA for SSE (See additional Table 1 and Table 4) ³ Downgraded for imprecision because too few comparisons showed clinically important results in NMA (See additional Table 7, Table 10 and Table 14)

Summary of findings 4. Network meta‐analysis rankings of psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 1. Short‐term remission: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Comparison (X vs Y)	Pairwise meta‐analyses (common τ = 0.69)				Standard NMA (τ = 0.64)			ΝΜΑ adjusted for SSE (τ = 0.59)
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CrI (lower)	CrI (upper)
PT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.36	0.11	1.18	0.35	0.10	1.11
BT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.37	0.12	1.15	0.38	0.12	1.19
BT vs PT	2	1.11	0.21	6.00	1.03	0.42	2.28	1.10	0.51	2.50
CT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.47	0.11	2.07	0.44	0.10	1.90
CT vs PT	1	1.22	0.20	7.48	1.33	0.44	4.05	1.27	0.41	3.91
CT vs BT	1	0.95	0.12	7.47	1.29	0.41	4.07	1.15	0.37	3.61
CBT vs SP	3	0.68	0.24	1.91	0.68	0.25	1.83	0.67	0.25	1.82
CBT vs PT	4	1.56	0.62	3.94	1.90	0.98	3.69	1.95	1.02	3.97
CBT vs BT	10	2.09	1.10	3.97	1.84	1.06	3.22	1.77	1.02	3.11
CBT vs CT	1	1.69	0.21	13.47	1.43	0.48	4.23	1.53	0.52	4.68
WL vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.08	0.03	0.26	0.22	0.06	0.78
WL vs PT	4	0.21	0.06	0.70	0.23	0.12	0.48	0.64	0.27	1.65
WL vs BT	3	0.12	0.04	0.43	0.23	0.12	0.45	0.58	0.25	1.36
WL vs CT	2	0.12	0.02	0.61	0.18	0.06	0.52	0.50	0.15	1.77
WL vs CBT	18	0.13	0.07	0.22	0.12	0.07	0.21	0.33	0.16	0.69
NT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.26	0.04	1.82	0.24	0.03	1.67
NT vs PT	1	0.70	0.11	4.33	0.73	0.14	3.68	0.70	0.14	3.48
NT vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.71	0.13	3.96	0.64	0.11	3.51
NT vs CT	1	0.57	0.09	3.48	0.55	0.11	2.73	0.55	0.11	2.71
NT vs CBT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.38	0.07	2.05	0.36	0.07	1.85
NT vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	3.11	0.58	16.78	1.10	0.18	6.26
PD vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.71	0.14	3.52	0.71	0.14	3.42
PD vs PT	1	4.21	0.70	25.49	1.99	0.57	7.02	2.05	0.60	7.38
PD vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.94	0.50	7.48	1.88	0.48	7.17
PD vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.50	0.30	7.43	1.61	0.33	8.17
PD vs CBT	1	0.51	0.09	2.99	1.05	0.30	3.68	1.06	0.29	3.66
PD vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	8.50	2.27	31.84	3.21	0.75	12.87
PD vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	2.73	0.36	20.56	2.91	0.40	22.56
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Note that in the main text, where necessary, we inverted the values presented in Table 4 for an easier presentation, in which an OR greater than 1 stands for a higher number of events (short‐term remissions) in the intervention group when compared to the control group. Statistically significant results are written in bold. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CrI: credible interval CT: cognitive training NMA: network meta‐analysis NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy SSE: small study effects WL: wait list

Table 1. Short‐term remission: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Short‐term remission: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Comparison	I²(%)	95% CI
CBT vs SP	0	0 to 90
WL vs CBT	58	29 to 75
CBT vs BT	5	0 to 64
WL vs BT	34	0 to 78
WL vs PT	56	0 to 85
CBT vs PT	0	0 to 85
This values refer to standard meta‐analyses, where each comparison has its own heterogeneity variance. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CT: cognitive training PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 2. Short‐term remission: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 3. Short‐term remission: ranking of treatments

Treatment	SUCRA
SP	88
CBT	76
PD	73
CT	50
BT	41
PT	35
NT	25
WL	13
BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 3. Short‐term remission: ranking of treatments

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 4. Short‐term response: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Comparison (X vs Y)	Pairwise meta‐analyses (common τ = 0.55)				Standard NMA (τ = 0.63)			NMA adjusted for SSE (τ = 0.65)
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CrI (lower)	CrI (upper)
PT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.68	0.20	2.31	0.69	0.20	2.41
BT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.589	0.18	1.93	0.69	0.21	2.33
BT vs PT	2	0.90	0.21	3.90	0.87	0.41	1.88	1.00	0.46	2.23
CT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.39	0.07	2.07	0.36	0.07	1.96
CT vs PT	1	0.94	0.18	4.97	0.58	0.16	2.09	0.53	0.14	2.04
CT vs BT	1	0.20	0.03	1.46	0.66	0.18	2.51	0.53	0.13	2.07
CBT vs SP	3	1.02	0.38	2.73	1.04	0.36	2.99	1.12	0.40	3.26
CBT vs PT	4	1.23	0.56	2.71	1.54	0.81	2.94	1.62	0.84	3.17
CBT vs BT	10	1.78	1.00	3.18	1.77	1.02	3.04	1.61	0.92	2.86
CBT vs CT	1	2.92	0.43	19.98	2.65	0.73	9.62	3.08	0.81	12.26
WL vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.17	0.05	0.53	0.45	0.12	1.93
WL vs PT	4	0.15	0.05	0.44	0.25	0.12	0.50	0.65	0.24	1.91
WL vs BT	4	0.32	0.14	0.73	0.29	0.15	0.54	0.65	0.28	1.68
WL vs CT	1	0.31	0.02	4.27	0.43	0.12	1.61	1.24	0.26	6.42
WL vs CBT	17	0.19	0.05	0.31	0.16	0.10	0.26	0.40	0.18	1.00
NT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.16	0.02	1.21	0.15	0.02	1.22
NT vs PT	1	0.31	0.06	1.62	0.24	0.05	1.25	0.22	0.04	1.25
NT vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.27	0.05	1.59	0.22	0.03	1.37
NT vs CT	1	0.33	0.06	1.68	0.41	0.08	2.13	0.42	0.07	2.31
NT vs CBT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.16	0.03	0.87	0.14	0.02	0.80
NT vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.96	0.17	5.46	0.33	0.04	2.32
PD vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.02	0.20	5.28	1.07	0.20	5.70
PD vs PT	1	4.22	0.84	21.31	1.51	0.42	5.35	1.54	0.42	5.92
PD vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.73	0.44	6.70	1.54	0.37	6.41
PD vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	2.59	0.45	14.82	2.94	0.47	18.59
PD vs CBT	1	0.34	0.07	1.76	0.98	0.27	3.47	0.95	0.25	3.60
PD vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	6.02	1.60	22.61	2.37	0.49	10.75
PD vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	6.28	0.80	49.20	7.03	0.84	61.98
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Note that in the main text, where necessary, we inverted the values presented in Table 4 for an easier presentation, in which an OR greater than 1 stands for a higher number of events (short‐term remissions) in the intervention group when compared to the control group. Statistically significant results are written in bold. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CrI: credible interval CT: cognitive training NMA: network meta‐analysis NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy SSE: small study effects WL: wait list

Table 4. Short‐term response: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 5. Short‐term response: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Comparison	I²(%)	95% CI
CBT vs SP	7	0 to 90
WL vs CBT	39	0 to 66
CBT vs BT	22	0 to 62
WL vs BT	26	0 to 72
WL vs PT	14	0 to 87
CBT vs PT	45	0 to 82
This values refer to standard meta‐analyses, where each comparison has its own heterogeneity variance. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CT: cognitive training PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 5. Short‐term response: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 6. Short‐term response: ranking of treatments

Treatment	SUCRA
CBT	84
PD	74
SP	72
BT	53
PT	52
WL	31
CT	27
NT	7
BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 6. Short‐term response: ranking of treatments

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 7. Short‐term dropouts: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Comparison	Pairwise meta‐analysis				Network meta‐analysis (τ = 0.33)
Comparison	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)
PT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.76	0.28	2.08
BT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.92	0.35	2.28
BT vs PT	2	2.19	0.46	10.38	1.20	0.60	2.40
CT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.06	0.20	5.62
CT vs PT	1	5.59	0.59	52.73	1.38	0.33	5.86
CT vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.15	0.26	5.20
CBT vs SP	3	0.63	0.21	1.89	0.64	0.28	1.43
CBT vs PT	3	0.56	0.24	1.28	0.83	0.46	1.50
CBT vs BT	10	0.89	0.52	1.51	0.69	0.42	1.15
CBT vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.60	0.14	2.60
WL vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.48	0.19	1.22
WL vs PT	5	0.74	0.30	1.83	0.63	0.35	1.15
WL vs BT	4	0.34	0.16	0.69	0.52	0.30	0.93
WL vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.46	0.11	1.97
WL vs CBT	14	0.70	0.42	1.16	0.76	0.48	1.20
NT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.10	0.00	2.18
NT vs PT	1	0.29	0.01	7.51	0.13	0.01	3.10
NT vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.11	0.00	2.69
NT vs CT	1	0.07	0.00	1.37	0.10	0.00	1.93
NT vs CBT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.16	0.01	3.80
NT vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.21	0.09	5.01
PD vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.33	0.08	1.46
PD vs PT	1	0.16	0.03	0.84	0.44	0.12	1.52
PD vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.36	0.10	1.35
PD vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.32	0.05	2.04
PD vs CBT	1	1.21	0.27	5.35	0.52	0.15	1.80
PD vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.69	0.19	2.50
PD vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	3.31	0.11	97.03
APP vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.84	0.07	10.61
APP vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.10	0.10	12.30
APP vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.92	0.08	10.49
APP vs CT	1	0.97	0.08	11.51	0.80	0.09	7.21
APP vs CBT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.32	0.12	14.61
APP vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.75	0.16	19.51
APP vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	8.37	0.21	333.81
APP vs PD	‐	‐	‐	‐	2.53	0.17	36.70
PE vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.84	0.01	97.42
PE vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.10	0.01	119.64
PE vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.92	0.01	100.89
PE vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.80	0.01	77.96
PE vs CBT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.32	0.01	142.93
PE vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.75	0.02	189.75
PE vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	8.36	0.04	1954.05
PE vs PD	‐	‐	‐	‐	2.53	0.02	316.00
PE vs APP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.00	0.02	55.66
3W vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.36	0.06	2.12
3W vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.47	0.08	2.65
3W vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.39	0.07	2.15
3W vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.34	0.04	3.03
3W vs CBT	1	0.56	0.13	2.51	0.56	0.11	2.88
3W vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.74	0.14	4.04
3W vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	3.55	0.10	126.65
3W vs PD	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.07	0.13	8.31
3W vs APP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.42	0.02	7.74
3W vs PE	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.42	0.00	60.45
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). Of course, since this is dropout outcome, an OR smaller than one favours treatment X. Statistically significant results are written in bold. 3W: third‐wave APP: attention/psychological placebo BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CrI: credible interval CT: cognitive training NMA: network meta‐analysis NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PE: psychoeducation PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy SSE: small study effects WL: wait list

Table 7. Short‐term dropouts: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 8. Short‐term dropouts: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Comparison	I²(%)	95% CI
CBT vs SP	49	0 to 85
WL vs CBT	0	0 to 55
CBT vs BT	0	0 to 62
WL vs BT	0	0 to 85
WL vs PT	25	0 to 70
CBT vs PT	12	0 to 91
This values refer to standard meta‐analyses, where each comparison has its own heterogeneity variance. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CT: cognitive training PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 8. Short‐term dropouts: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 9. Short‐term dropouts: ranking of treatments

Treatment	SUCRA
NT	85
PD	75
WL	67
3W	67
CBT	51
APP	42
PE	42
PT	38
CT	29
BT	28
SP	26
Note that higher ranking treatments correspond to lower dropout rate. 3W: third‐wave APP: attention/psychological placebo BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PE: psychoeducation PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 9. Short‐term dropouts: ranking of treatments

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 10. Short‐term improvement: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Comparison (X vs Y)	Pairwise meta‐analysis				Network meta‐analysis (τ = 0.34)
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	SMD	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	SMD	CI (lower)	CI (upper)
PT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.24	‐0.35	0.84
BT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.16	‐0.42	0.74
BT vs PT	1	‐0.26	‐0.98	0.46	‐0.08	‐0.47	0.31
CT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.17	‐0.56	0.90
CT vs PT	1	‐0.02	‐0.67	0.64	‐0.08	‐0.63	0.48
CT vs BT	1	0.65	‐0.16	1.46	0.00	‐0.56	0.57
CBT vs SP	3	‐0.08	‐0.40	0.24	‐0.05	‐0.56	0.47
CBT vs PT	5	‐0.05	‐0.30	0.19	‐0.29	‐0.60	0.02
CBT vs BT	10	‐0.24	‐0.45	‐0.03	‐0.21	‐0.48	0.07
CBT vs CT	2	0.03	‐0.88	0.94	‐0.21	‐0.73	0.31
WL vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.05	0.49	1.60
WL vs PT	4	0.87	0.09	1.65	0.80	0.47	1.13
WL vs BT	3	0.92	0.59	1.26	0.89	0.57	1.20
WL vs CT	1	0.60	‐0.27	1.47	0.88	0.34	1.42
WL vs CBT	17	1.14	0.87	1.41	1.09	0.88	1.31
NT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.78	‐0.06	1.63
NT vs PT	1	0.36	‐0.26	0.98	‐0.46	‐1.12	0.21
NT vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.62	‐0.09	1.33
NT vs CT	1	0.39	‐0.25	1.03	0.61	‐0.11	1.34
NT vs CBT	1	1.30	0.46	2.14	0.83	0.16	1.50
NT vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.27	‐0.96	0.42
PD vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.21	‐1.05	0.63
PD vs PT	1	‐1.18	‐1.79	‐0.57	‐0.46	‐1.12	0.21
PD vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.38	‐1.09	0.34
PD vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.38	‐1.21	0.45
PD vs CBT	1	0.57	‐0.07	1.2	‐0.17	‐0.83	0.50
PD vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐1.26	‐1.95	‐0.57
PD vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐1.00	‐1.91	‐0.07
PE vs APP	1	‐0.25	‐0.87	0.38	‐	‐	‐
3W vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.20	‐0.82	1.22
3W vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.04	‐0.98	0.90
3W vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.04	‐0.89	0.97
3W vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.04	‐0.99	1.07
3W vs CBT	1	0.26	‐0.33	0.84	0.25	‐0.64	1.14
3W vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.84	‐1.76	0.07
3W vs NT	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐0.58	‐1.69	0.53
3W vs PD	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.42	‐0.69	1.53
A positive SMD for Χ vs Y means treatment Y is better than X, the opposite for a negative SMD (this is because for the scales used a lower score corresponds to a better treatment). Statistically significant results are written in bold. 3W: third‐wave APP: attention/psychological placebo BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PE: psychoeducation PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 10. Short‐term improvement: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 11. Short‐term improvement: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Comparison	I²(%)	95% CI
CBT vs SP	0	0 to 90
CBT vs PT	0	0 to 79
WL vs PT	79	45 to 92
CBT vs BT	0	0 to 62
WL vs BT	23	0 to 92
WL vs CBT	61	34 to 77
This values refer to standard meta‐analyses, where each comparison has its own heterogeneity variance. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CT: cognitive training PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 11. Short‐term improvement: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 12. Short‐term improvement: ranking of treatments

Treatment	SUCRA
PD	83
CBT	79
SP	69
CT	54
3W	53
BT	52
PT	43
NT	14
WL	4
3W: third‐wave BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 12. Short‐term improvement: ranking of treatments

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 13. Long‐term remission/response: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Comparison (X vs Y)	Pairwise meta‐analyses				Network meta‐analysis
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)
PT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.31	0.33	5.25
BT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.27	0.38	4.27
BT vs PT	1	1.17	0.28	4.87	0.97	0.37	2.57
CT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.96	0.21	4.36
CT vs PT	1	0.83	0.25	2.80	0.74	0.26	2.06
CT vs BT	1	0.38	0.08	1.86	0.76	0.28	2.31
CBT vs SP	1	2.09	0.80	5.47	2.09	0.73	5.98
CBT vs PT	2	1.33	0.47	3.76	1.60	0.64	3.95
CBT vs BT	5	1.66	0.80	3.44	1.64	0.90	2.97
CBT vs CT	1	1.56	0.34	7.11	2.16	0.73	6.37
PD vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.67	0.33	8.33
PD vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.28	0.28	5.81
PD vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.31	0.34	5.07
PD vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.73	0.34	8.79
PD vs CBT	1	0.80	0.26	9.86	0.80	0.24	2.69
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Note that in the main text, where necessary, we inverted the values presented in Table 4 for an easier presentation, in which an OR greater than 1 stands for a higher number of events (short‐term remissions) in the intervention group when compared to the control group. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 13. Long‐term remission/response: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 14. Long‐term remission/response: ranking of treatments

Treatment	SUCRA
CBT	85
PD	64
PT	49
BT	43
SP	31
CT	27
BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 14. Long‐term remission/response: ranking of treatments

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 15. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results for short‐term remission excluding group therapy trials

Comparison	Pairwise meta‐analyses (common τ 0.05)				Standard NMA (τ ≅ 0)			NMA adjusted for SSE (τ ≅ 0.60)
Comparison	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CrI (lower)	CrI (upper)
PT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.27	0.11	0.64	0.34	0.10	1.08
BT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.35	0.16	0.75	0.38	0.12	1.16
BT vs PT	2	0.98	0.26	3.74	1.29	0.69	2.42	1.10	0.51	2.52
CT vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.43	0.13	1.47	0.44	0.10	1.87
CT vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.60	0.51	4.96	1.27	0.41	3.90
CT vs BT	1	0.95	0.19	4.84	1.24	0.44	3.51	1.15	0.37	3.68
CBT vs SP	3	0.67	0.33	1.35	0.67	0.34	1.27	0.67	0.24	1.77
CBT vs PT	3	2.02	0.85	4.76	2.46	1.39	4.33	1.94	1.02	3.97
CBT vs BT	9	1.90	1.15	3.16	1.90	1.26	2.88	1.76	1.02	3.13
CBT vs CT	1	1.69	0.33	8.76	1.54	0.55	4.32	1.53	0.52	4.66
WL vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.07	0.03	0.15	0.22	0.06	0.76
WL vs PT	4	0.22	0.09	0.53	0.25	0.14	0.45	0.64	0.27	1.66
WL vs BT	3	0.17	0.08	0.36	0.19	0.12	0.31	0.58	0.26	1.36
WL vs CT	2	0.12	0.03	0.46	0.16	0.06	0.43	0.51	0.15	1.82
WL vs CBT	11	0.10	0.05	0.19	0.10	0.07	0.16	0.33	0.16	0.70
PD vs SP	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.61	0.21	1.80	0.24	0.03	1.64
PD vs PT	1	4.22	1.17	15.15	2.25	0.93	5.42	0.70	0.14	3.66
PD vs BT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.74	0.68	4.47	0.64	0.11	3.60
PD vs CT	‐	‐	‐	‐	1.41	0.37	5.34	0.55	0.11	2.74
PD vs CBT	1	0.51	0.15	1.76	0.91	0.38	2.19	0.36	0.07	1.87
PD vs WL	‐	‐	‐	‐	8.97	3.50	22.95	1.09	0.18	6.45
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Note that in the main text, where necessary, we inverted the values presented in Table 4 for an easier presentation, in which an OR greater than 1 stands for a higher number of events (short‐term remissions) in the intervention group when compared to the control group. Statistically significant results are written in bold. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CI: confidence interval CrI: credible interval CT: cognitive training NMA: network meta‐analysis NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PE: psychoeducation PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy SSE: small study effects WL: wait list

Table 15. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses and NMA results for short‐term remission excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 16. Sensitivity analyses: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals for short‐term remission excluding group therapy trials

Comparison	I²(%)	95% CI
WL vs PT	56	0 to 85
WL vs BT	34	0 to 78
WL vs CBT	21	0 to 60
CBT vs BT	6	0 to 67
CBT vs SP	0	0 to 90
CBT vs PT	0	0 to 90
This values refer to standard meta‐analyses, where each comparison has its own heterogeneity variance. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 16. Sensitivity analyses: I2 values and their 95% confidence intervals for short‐term remission excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 17. Sensitivity analyses: ranking of treatments for short‐term remission excluding group therapy trials

Treatment	SUCRA
SP	89
CBT	76
PD	73
CT	50
BT	40
PT	35
NT	26
WL	13
BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 17. Sensitivity analyses: ranking of treatments for short‐term remission excluding group therapy trials

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 18. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses and I2 for short‐term remission excluding trials in which a concomitant pharmacotherapy is allowed

Comparison (X vs Y)	Pairwise meta‐analyses
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	I²
WL vs CBT	3	0.07	0.01	0.30	0.0%
CBT vs BT	2	2.21	0.96	5.10	0.7%
CBT vs SP	2	0.51	0.22	1.23	0.0%
WL vs BT	1	0.22	0.11	0.44	‐
NT vs CT	1	0.57	0.17	1.91	‐
CT vs PT	1	1.22	0.36	4.12	‐
NT vs PT	1	0.70	0.27	1.10	‐
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Note that in the main text, where necessary, we inverted the values presented in Table 4 for an easier presentation, in which an OR greater than 1 stands for a higher number of events (short‐term remissions) in the intervention group when compared to the control group. Statistically significant results are written in bold. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 18. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses and I2 for short‐term remission excluding trials in which a concomitant pharmacotherapy is allowed

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 19. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses with their I2 and NMA results for short‐term remission excluding from the analyses trials in which pharmacotherapy stabilisation was not required

Comparison (X vs Y)	Pairwise meta‐analyses					Network meta‐analysis (tau = 0.63)
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	I²	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)
BT vs PT	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	0.56	0.12	2.67
CBT vs PT	3	1.56	0.69	3.55	30	1.80	0.69	4.67
CBT vs BT	2	4.04	0.73	22.52	72	3.16	0.93	10.71
WL vs PT	3	0.22	0.01	4.04	69	0.11	0.03	0.36
WL vs BT	1	0.02	0.00	0.32	‐	0.19	0.04	0.87
WL vs CBT	6	0.06	0.03	0.014	0	0.06	0.02	0.16
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Note that in the main text, where necessary, we inverted the values presented in Table 4 for an easier presentation, in which an OR greater than 1 stands for a higher number of events (short‐term remissions) in the intervention group when compared to the control group. Statistically significant results are written in bold. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 19. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses with their I2 and NMA results for short‐term remission excluding from the analyses trials in which pharmacotherapy stabilisation was not required

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 20. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses for short‐term remission using a fixed‐effect rather than a random‐effects model

Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	Random‐effects pairwise meta‐analyses			Fixed‐effect pairwise meta‐analyses
Comparison (X vs Y)	# of studies	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)	OR	CI (lower)	CI (upper)
BT vs PT	2	1.09	0.22	5.52	0.96	0.27	3.46
CT vs PT	1	1.22	0.36	4.12	1.22	0.36	4.12
CT vs BT	1	0.95	0.20	4.54	0.95	0.20	4.54
CBT vs SP	3	0.67	0.35	1.27	0.67	0.35	1.27
CBT vs PT	4	1.43	0.78	2.62	1.43	0.78	2.62
CBT vs BT	10	2.05	1.29	3.27	2.05	1.30	3.22
CBT vs CT	1	1.69	0.35	8.22	1.69	0.35	8.22
PT vs WL	4	4.55	0.89	25.00	4.55	1.96	10.00
BT vs WL	3	8.33	2.33	25.00	5.56	2.94	11.11
CT vs WL	2	8.33	2.22	33.33	8.33	2.22	33.33
CBT vs WL	18	9.09	4.76	20.00	5.56	3.70	8.33
PT vs NT	1	1.43	0.41	5.00	1.43	0.41	5.00
CT vs NT	1	1.75	0.52	5.88	1.75	0.52	5.88
PD vs PT	1	4.22	1.27	13.95	4.22	1.27	13.95
PD vs CBT	1	0.51	0.16	1.613	0.51	0.16	1.613
OR (X vs Y) is defined as (Odds X)/(Odds Y). For each comparison X vs Y, an OR greater than one favours treatment X, an OR less than one favours treatment Y. Statistically significant results are written in bold. BT: behaviour therapy CBT: cognitive behaviour therapy CT: cognitive training NT: no treatment PD: psychodynamic therapies PT: physiological therapies SP: supportive psychotherapy WL: wait list

Table 20. Sensitivity analyses: pairwise meta‐analyses for short‐term remission using a fixed‐effect rather than a random‐effects model

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Terapias psicológicas para el trastorno de pánico con o sin agorafobia en adultos: un meta‐análisis en red

Información

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Autores

Contributions of authors

Declarations of interest

Version history

Differences between protocol and review

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

PICO

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Información

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Autores

Contributions of authors

Declarations of interest

Version history

Differences between protocol and review

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

PICO

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso