SynthesisInternational journal of nursing sciences2026
Comparative efficacy of group versus individual reminiscence therapy for depression in older adults: A network meta-analysis stratified by severity.
Synthesis in International journal of nursing sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To directly compare the efficacy of individual reminiscence therapy (IRT) and group reminiscence therapy (GRT) for alleviating depressive symptoms in older adults, and to evaluate their effects on secondary outcomes, including anxiety, cognitive function, life satisfaction, and quality of life. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Eleven Chinese and English databases were searched from inception to December 1, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IRT or GRT against a medication control group (MCG), a non-medication control group (NCG), or each other were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed, with comparisons further stratified by baseline depression severity (mild, moderate, severe). Treatment rankings were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) statistic. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine potential effect modifiers, including intervention format, baseline depression severity, control type, intervention duration, session frequency, total sessions, cumulative intervention time, geographical region, setting, and provider qualification. Results: Twenty RCTs with 1,633 participants were included. For depression, both IRT and GRT were significantly superior to MCG and NCG, with no statistically significant difference between the two modalities overall ( Conclusions: Both IRT and GRT are effective for depression in older adults, with no statistically significant difference between them. GRT may be preferred for mild depression, while IRT may be more suitable for moderate-to-severe depression. IRT shows additional benefits for anxiety and cognition, whereas GRT excels in improving life satisfaction. These findings support a personalized, severity-informed approach to selecting RT delivery formats in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.