Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42614327›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Mindfulness-based interventions for perinatal depression, anxiety, and stress: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, with an exploratory subgroup signal by delivery mode.

Gaoqin Tang, Unfai Cho, Jun Zhang, Min Chen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gaoqin Tang *Faculty of Chinese Medicine and State Key Laboratory of Mechanism and Quality of Chinese Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, Macao SAR, China.
Unfai Cho *Faculty of Chinese Medicine and State Key Laboratory of Mechanism and Quality of Chinese Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, Macao SAR, China.
Jun ZhangFaculty of Chinese Medicine and State Key Laboratory of Mechanism and Quality of Chinese Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, Macao SAR, China.
Min ChenFaculty of Chinese Medicine and State Key Laboratory of Mechanism and Quality of Chinese Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, Macao SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Perinatal depression is a highly common clinical complication. While expert panels advocate for non-pharmacological treatments, the relative benefits of mindfulness-based interventions delivered face-to-face versus through emerging digital platforms have not been examined within a single integrated synthesis that distinguishes the contribution of delivery mode from that of trial era and methodology. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel-group randomized controlled trials evaluating mindfulness-based interventions for perinatal women. The synthesis relied exclusively on directly verifiable, publicly accessible study-level data, obtained from primary full-text reports and, for seven of the ten depression trials, from the open controlled-data table of a prior peer-reviewed meta-analysis (Lever Taylor et al., 2016). The primary outcome was post-intervention depressive symptoms, with anxiety and stress as secondary outcomes. A pre-specified subgroup analysis examined delivery mode (digital versus face-to-face) as an exploratory, hypothesis-generating moderator rather than as a head-to-head comparison. Results: Ten RCTs (591 perinatal women) contributed depression data. MBIs significantly reduced depressive symptoms (Hedges g = -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P < .001; I² = 0%), with a 95% prediction interval excluding the null. In an exploratory, pre-specified subgroup analysis, the digital subgroup showed a larger pooled effect than the face-to-face subgroup (g = -0.40 vs. -0.13; test for subgroup differences, P = .04). Because delivery mode was completely confounded with publication year, trial size, and risk of bias, and because all three digital trials enrolled antenatal samples, this difference is reported as hypothesis-generating rather than as evidence of modality superiority. Pooled effects favored MBIs for anxiety (g = -0.29; k = 8) but were not significant for stress (g = -0.11; k = 8). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the depression finding. Conclusion: MBIs produce a small-to-moderate reduction in perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms, with a numerically larger depression effect in the digital subgroup. Because delivery mode is completely confounded with publication year, trial size, and risk of bias in the present evidence base, this subgroup difference is hypothesis-generating, and no delivery mode can yet be considered superior. Confirmatory trials using active comparators, longer postpartum follow-up, and standardized outcome reporting are needed before any delivery mode can be considered superior.

Indexed as

digital health (mHealth)meta-analysismindfulness-based interventionsperinatal depressionrandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID42614327
PMCPMC13481379

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.