Skip to content

Efficacy and Moderators of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) in ‘Difficult to Treat’ Depression: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Thorsten Barnhofer, Maria Niemi, Johannes Michalak, Maria Velana, Mark G. Williams, Alberto Chiesa, Stuart J. Eisendrath, Kevin L. Delucchi, Zindel V. Segal, Mira B. Cladder-Micus, Anne E. M. Speckens, Ali Akbar Foroughi, Mauro Garcia-Toro, Jesus Montero-Marin, Barnaby D. Dunn, Clara Strauss, Florian A Ruths, Mary Ryan, Mathias Harrer

medRxiv June 9, 2025 preprint DOI: 10.1101/2025.06.09.25329249 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Randomized
Population Patients with current difficult-to-treat depression, as studied in the included randomised controlled trials
Intervention Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT)
Topics Depression Meditation
Key findings The protocol sets out a plan to pool individual participant data from randomised controlled trials to assess the efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for difficult-to-treat depression and to test potential moderators of treatment effects. The authors state that results will inform arguments for or against implementing MBCT for this patient group.

Abstract

ABSTRACT:

Introduction: About 30% of depressed patients suffer from a protracted course in which the disorder continues to cause significant burden despite treatment efforts. While originally developed for relapse prevention, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) has increasingly been investigated in depressed patients with such ‘difficult-to-treat’ courses. This is a protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis aiming to determine efficacy and potential moderators of MBCT treatment effects in this group based on evidence from randomised controlled trials. Methods and analysis: Systematic searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomised controlled trials were completed on 17 June 2024. Authors of identified studies have contributed IPD and data extractions have been completed. An update search will be conducted immediately before the start of data analyses. We will investigate the following

Outcomes: (a) self-reported and observer-reported severity of depression symptomatology, (b) remission, (c) clinically meaningful improvement and deterioration. One-stage and two-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with one-stage models using the observed IPD from all studies simultaneously as the primary approach. One-stage IPD models will include stratified study intercepts and error terms as well as random effects to capture between-study heterogeneity. Moderator analyses will test treatment-covariate interactions for both individual patient level and study level characteristics. Ethics and dissemination: The results will inform understanding of the use of MBCT in patients with current ‘difficult-to-treat’ depression and will contribute to arguments in favour of or against implementing MBCT as a treatment for this group. They will be published in a peer reviewed journal and made available to stakeholders in accessible formats. No local ethical review was necessary following consultation with the Ethics and Governance Board of the University of Surrey. Guidance on patient data storage and management will be adhered to throughout. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022332039 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: The chosen approach using IPD has several advantages over conventional meta-analyses including the possibility to assess whether individual participant level characteristics influence treatment effects with more specificity and power Limitations of the approach include the fact that inconsistencies across studies regarding the format and type of variables reported may restrict our ability to investigate moderators of treatment effects Transformation of outcome measures to a common metric across all studies may come with a small loss of information.

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on depression, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Ketamine and Other NMDA Antagonists: Early Clinical Trials and Possible Mechanisms in Depression Participants with major depression in placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized... 2015 Systematic review and meta-analysis
Side-effects associated with ketamine use in depression: a systematic review. Patients with depression 2018 Systematic review
Comparative efficacy of racemic ketamine and esketamine for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis Adults with unipolar or bipolar major depression 2020 Systematic review and meta-analysis n = 1,877
Single-dose infusion ketamine and non-ketamine N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists for unipolar and bipolar depression: a meta-analysis of efficacy, safety and time trajectories Patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar depression 2016 Systematic review and meta-analysis n = 588
Therapeutic effects of classic serotonergic psychedelics: A systematic review of modern‐era clinical studies Patients with cancer- or illness-related anxiety and depression, major depressive... 2020 Systematic review n = 188

Citations in the library

Explore topics