While various delivery formats of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) are available, comprehensive evidence on their comparative effectiveness and acceptability is lacking.

To examine the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of different CBT delivery formats for OCD.

An existing database of psychological interventions for OCD was utilised, with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT delivery formats with each other/control groups were included. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Comparative standard mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for effectiveness in reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment. Relative risks were calculated for acceptability (conceptualised as any cause discontinuation in the acute treatment phase).

A total of 61 RCTs involving 3710 patients with OCD were included. All CBT treatment formats were significantly more effective than control groups (SMDs: −0.39 to −1.66). No significant differences were found among individual, remote-delivery, guided self-help, time-intensive and family-involved formats. However, individual, remote-delivery and family-involved formats were more effective than group (SMDs, −0.38 to −0.60), and most treatment formats were more effective than unguided self-help (SMDs, −0.58 to −0.80). Regarding acceptability, most CBT formats showed no significant differences among themselves, although they were generally more acceptable (relative risks: 1.11–1.18) than unguided self-help.

Most CBT delivery formats serve as potential alternatives to conventional individual CBT. Unguided self-help has lower but still moderate effects in reducing OCD symptom severity, and it holds important potential for assisting a larger number of individuals with OCD who face barriers to accessing treatments.

Antidepressants are effective for depression, but most evidence excludes individuals with comorbid physical conditions.

To assess antidepressants’ efficacy and tolerability in individuals with depression and comorbid physical conditions.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Co-primary outcomes were efficacy on depressive symptoms and tolerability (participants dropping out because of adverse events). Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool and certainty of estimates with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach. A study protocol was registered in advance (https://osf.io/9cjhe/).

Of the 115 included RCTs, 104 contributed to efficacy (7714 participants) and 82 to tolerability (6083 participants). The mean age was 55.7 years and 51.9% of participants were female. Neurological and cardiocirculatory conditions were the most represented (26.1% and 18.3% of RCTs, respectively). The following antidepressants were more effective than placebo: imipramine, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, desipramine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, fluoxetine, escitalopram, mianserin, mirtazapine and agomelatine, with standardised mean differences ranging from −1.01 (imipramine) to −0.34 (escitalopram). Sertraline and paroxetine were effective for the largest number of ICD-11 disease subgroups (four out of seven). In terms of tolerability, sertraline, imipramine and nortriptyline were less tolerated than placebo, with relative risks ranging from 1.47 (sertraline) to 3.41 (nortriptyline). For both outcomes, certainty of evidence was ‘low’ or ‘very low’ for most comparisons.

Antidepressants are effective in individuals with comorbid physical conditions, although tolerability is a relevant concern. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have the best benefit–risk profile, making them suitable as first-line treatments, while tricyclics are highly effective but less tolerated than SSRIs and placebo.