SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on depression and anxiety in aging populations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent among older adults and significantly impair quality of life. Non-pharmacological interventions have increasingly gained attention as alternative or complementary therapeutic approaches. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of these interventions for depression and anxiety in adults aged ≥55 years using a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2025. Eighty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 6,646) were included, covering 11 non-pharmacological interventions such as dance, qigong, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), internet-based CBT (ICBT), resistance training, and others. A random-effects NMA was conducted using Stata 15.1, with efficacy ranked using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) values. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Publication bias was examined using comparison-adjusted funnel plots and Egger's regression tests (depression: intercept = 2.40, p = 0.029; anxiety: intercept = 1.00, p = 0.538). Results: Eighty-three RCTs (n = 6,646) encompassing 11 interventions were included. For depression, dance ranked highest (SUCRA = 98.5%) and demonstrated statistically significant superiority over CBT, ICBT, waitlist, and usual care. Resistance training (SUCRA = 67.5%) and CBT (SUCRA = 65.6%) ranked next. For anxiety, music (SUCRA = 78.9%) and Tai Chi (SUCRA = 77.1%) ranked highest; however, only Tai Chi and CBT showed statistically significant advantages over waitlist. MBSR demonstrated limited efficacy across both outcomes, while outdoor walking ranked among the least effective interventions for depression. Conclusions: Dance and music/Tai Chi demonstrated the highest probabilities of efficacy for depression and anxiety, respectively, followed by resistance training and CBT/ICBT. MBSR and outdoor walking showed limited effectiveness. Given the heterogeneity across studies, SUCRA rankings should be interpreted cautiously, and a personalized, stepped-care approach is recommended. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/, identifier CRD420251007063.
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.