Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 21;18(2):e0281469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281469

Effect of MBSR, DBT and CBT on the hypertension patients with depression/anxiety: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Yan Zhang 1,#, Hailiang Zhang 2,3,#, Yong Zhang 4, Zijiao Yang 5, Lingling Wang 6, Weimin Pan 3, Runjing Dai 3, Qianqian Ju 3, Dong Ren 7,*, Shisan Bao 3,*, Jingchun Fan 3,*
Editor: Stephan Doering8
PMCID: PMC9943006  PMID: 36802399

Abstract

Introduction

Hypertension, one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide, usually requires lifetime managing blood pressure (BP) with medications. Due to quite large number of hypertension patients co-exist with depression and/or anxiety, and non-cooperated with medical instruction, consequently management of BP is impaired with serious complications, resulting in compromised quality of life. Consequently quality of life of such patients is impaired with serious complications. Therefore, management of depression and/or anxiety is equally important as the treatment of hypertension. Depression and/or anxiety are independent risk factors of hypertension, which is supported by the finding that there is close correlation between hypertension are depression/or anxiety. Psychotherapy (non-drug treatment) maybe useful for hypertensive patients with depression and/or anxiety to improve their negative emotions. We aim to quantify the effective of psychological therapies in the management of hypertension patients with depression or anxiety, by comparing and ranking a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Materials and methods

Literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be performed in five electronic databases from inception to December 2021, including PubMed, the Cochrane library, Embase, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM). The search terms mainly include “hypertension”, “mindfulness-based stress reduction” (MBSR), “cognitive behavioral therapy” (CBT) and “dialectical behavior therapy” (DBT). Cochrane Collaboration quality assessment tool will be used for the risk of bias assessment. A Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed, using WinBUGS 1.4.3, and Stata 14 will be applied to draw the network diagram, while RevMan 5.3.5 will be used to produce funnel plot for assessing the risk of publication bias. Recommended rating, development and grade methodology will also be utilized to assess the quality of evidence.

Results

Effect of MBSR, CBT and DBT will be evaluated by traditional meta-analysis directly and Bayesian network meta-analysis indirectly. Our study will provide the evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological treatments in the hypertension patients with anxiety. There is no research ethical requirement because this is a systematic review of published literature. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration

Prospero registration number: CRD42021248566.

1. Introduction

It is predicted that the number of hypertensive adults will reach 1.5 billion, which is ~ 30% of the world population by 2025, based on analysis of worldwide data of hypertension burden [1]. Hypertension is notoriously difficult to control, causing detrimental irreversible damage to the important system in the body, e.g. central nerves system and cardiovascular system. In addition to physical impact, psychological disturbance is another major concern among these uncontrolled hypertension patients [2]. Rapid economic development and fast globalization perhaps contribute to the increased stress to the general population via transforming our social organization [3]. The literature has accumulated evaluating the effect of psychological stress in cardiovascular field, including depression and anxiety [4, 5], which are mutually causal and affect each other, and further aggravate the psychological impairment. There are some reports, showing the efficacy of psychological intervention for the management of the patients with comorbidity of hypertension and depression/anxiety. We will explore/validate such findings, using meta-analysis in current study.

It has been reported that substantially increased volume of psychological intervention for the management of hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety over the last two decades [6]. Depression and anxiety are significant contributors to hypertension at the global level with huge economic burden. The World Mental Health Survey from 17 countries demonstrates that on average about 1 in 20 people reported having an episode of depression in the previous experience [7], suggesting common problem nowadays we face. It has reported that the incidence of depression in hypertension patients reached 20%, which is supported by the finding that cardiovascular disease patients have a higher incidence of psychological disorders, accompanied with increased the risk of cerebrovascular accident in the general population with anxiety and depression disorder [8]. This is supported by the finding from Netherlands for a 5-year study involving the 455,238 women, confirming a close correlation between hypertension and depression/anxiety. Furthermore, depression or anxiety increases 3.5 or 2.0 fold of the risk of hypertension from non-hypertensive people [9]. The finding from Netherlands is consistent with other regions, showing that depression or anxiety increases the risk of hypertension by 1.42 [10] or 1.55 [11] times. Patients with depression and anxiety usually presented with dizziness, headache and chest tightness [12], and often accompanied with negative emotions which impacted quality of life. Such phenomenon is attracted great attention from psychologists recognizing the needs from mental unstable patients [13].

Effective significant increases for psychological therapies have been seen in hypertension patients with depression and anxiety in the past two decades. Due to inferences from similar study are somewhat constrained methodological issues, including no control group, inclusion of measurement of treatment adherence, or measurement of follow-up outcomes, and inclusion of patients with concurrent use of psychotropic medications, and unequal duration of treatment. To date, few studies have directly addressed whether different psychotherapies or similar treatments have comparable efficacy for treatment of hypertension patients with depression and anxiety. Several clinical practice guidelines recommend that in hypertension patients, psychotherapy should be considered as the first-line intervention for the management of hypertension patients with depression and anxiety disorder, especially suitable when anti-depression or anti-anxiety drugs are not working or not available [14, 15]. The evidence-based for various psychotherapy to be more effective and safer in the treatment of depression or anxiety disorder in hypertension patients is not well established [16]. Most of the meta-analysis published are conducted a direct comparison of the various interventions, rather than an indirect comparison of the interventions. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) has the advantage that all interventions that have been tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be simultaneously compared, without requiring direct within-study treatment versus treatment comparisons. It is reported that mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) [17, 18] and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) [19] have a good effect in treating chronic diseases patients, and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) [20] has a significant effect in management of depression and anxiety. In this protocol, we intend to examine if these interventions improve depression, anxiety and blood pressure from these cohorts. We will incorporate the relevant literature of the above three therapies, and use Bayesian network meta-analysis to explore the relative effect and/or safety between different psychotherapies with depression relieved as the primary outcome index, anxiety relieved and blood pressure improved as the secondary outcome index.

2. Methods/Design

2.1 Research objectives

The aim of the current protocol is to synthesize all psychotherapies evidence and to provide clinicians with a reliable and optimal treatment for depressive and/or anxiety disorder in hypertension patients.

2.2 Inclusion criteria

2.2.1 Types of studies

We will include only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with MBSR, CBT, DBT.

2.2.2 Types of participants

1) Hypertension patients with depression or anxiety; 2) Hypertension patients who volunteer for psychotherapy; 3) inpatient/outpatient.

2.2.3 Types of interventions

The eligible interventions include MBSR, CBT, and DBT, the length of each intervention is 8–10 weeks, and the follow-up time is 1–3 months.

2.2.4 Types of comparators

The control interventions will be included drug therapy and exercise therapy (Yoga, Tai Chi, etc.).

2.2.5 Types of outcomes

The primary outcome indexes of the protocol are depression and anxiety score, and the secondary outcome indexes mainly include blood pressure and other outcome indexes reported in the literature.

2.3 Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria include:

  1. Hypertension patients who receive any combination of two or more therapies other than MBSR, CBT and DBT.

  2. Any hypertension patients treated with any psychotherapy other than the above.

  3. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, experimental studies, mechanism discussions, experience summary and other research types of literature.

  4. Repeatedly checked or published literature.

  5. Incomplete data or information that does not indicate the end result and cannot be included.

2.4 Information sources and search strategy

A literature search for RCTs will be performed in five electronic databases from inception to December 2022, including: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science and China Biology Medicine disc. In order to find more relevant papers, we will conduct forward and backward citation screening through the citation and bibliography of systematic review. Multiple synonyms for each word will be incorporated into the search. Search strategy of PubMed is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Search strategy (PubMed).

#1 Search "Hypertension"[Mesh]
#2 Search (High Blood Pressure*[Title/Abstract]) OR (Hypertension[Title/Abstract])
#3 Search #1 OR #2
#4 Search "mindfulness-based stress reduction" [MeSH]
#5 Search mindfulness-based stress reduction[Title/Abstract]
#6 Search #4 OR #5
#7 Search "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy"[Mesh]
#8 Search ((((Cognitive Behavioral Therap*[Title/Abstract]) OR (Cognitive Behavior Therap*[Title/Abstract])) OR (Cognitive Therap*[Title/Abstract])) OR (Cognitive Psychotherap*[Title/Abstract])) OR (Cognition Therap*[Title/Abstract])
#9 Search #7 OR #8
#10 Search "Dialectical Behavior Therapy"[Mesh]
#11 Search Dialectical Behavior Therap*[Title/Abstract]
#12 Search #10 OR #11
#13 Search #6 OR #9 OR #12
#14 Search #3 AND #13
#15 Search #14 Filters: Randomized Controlled Trial

2.5 Register

The protocol of the present study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (Prospero registration number: CRD42021248566).

2.6 Date management

The search results will be imported to the document management software (Endnote X9). Before the formal selection of literature, we will conduct two inspections after the literature is exported and the duplicate literature is excluded. The software will record our screening process.

2.7 Study screening

Two reviewers will screen the articles independently, based on the titles/abstracts and full texts. A final judgment will be made following the discussion with the third senior reviewer, in case of disagreement. If the study data is repeated, only the studies with large sample size and long follow-up time will be included. The flow chart of study selection is displayed in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Fig 1

2.8 Data extraction

Two independent reviewers will extract the data from each included trial, using standardized data extraction forms, including study characteristics (e.g., all listed authors, publication year, title, publication type, publication journal, country and sponsor), characteristics of the patients (e.g., diagnostic criteria, comorbidities, the age, setting, number of sample, sex, and severity of depression at baseline), intervention details (e.g., the type of intervention, the treatment duration, the length and number of sessions of psychotherapy, treatment delivery and treatment medium of psychotherapy) and outcome measures (primary outcomes and secondary outcomes). We will assess and report the reliability of the reviewers’ data extraction on each coded variable. Any disagreements will be resolved by a third review reviewers, as described above. Whenever it is necessary, the authors of the studies will be contacted for further information.

2.9 Outcomes

We will utilize the data available from the selected literatures, but not only narrow our study into the PHQ-9 depression scale and the GAD-7 anxiety scale. The primary outcomes are the modified depression and/or anxiety scores, by comparing prior to and post intervention. We will further determine the blood pressure prior to and post intervention from these cohorts, as objective evidence for improving the patients’ conditions. The treatment duration will be defined as from 8 to 10 week. We will exclude trials with treatment duration of less than 8 weeks, because the onset of benefit for most psychotherapies often takes at least 8 weeks. Furthermore, trials comparing the same type of psychological interventions, but at different numbers of therapeutic sessions, different delivery format (group, individual) [21], different treatment media (face-to-face, internet-based) [22, 23] and different treatment conditions will be considered as the same node in the network analysis. We anticipate that any patient(s) who meet all inclusion criteria, in principal, is equally likely to be randomized to any of the interventions in the synthesis comparator set.

The secondary outcome is efficacy (as dichotomous outcome), measured by the total number of patients who achieved the criteria of remission, defined as being below the threshold in blood pressure (e.g., less than 140/90 mmHg for blood pressure).

In addition, the outcome indicators also include any other outcomes mentioned in the original study.

2.10 Risk of bias assessment

The methodological quality of each included study will be assessed, using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT), by two independent reviewers. The assessment tool includes the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of the results assessment, incomplete data of the results, selective reporting, and other sources of bias [24]. Disagreement will be solved by discussion with a third senior reviewer.

2.11 Statistical analysis

NMA combines direct and indirect evidence for all relative treatment effects and provides estimates with maximum power. First, we will perform pairwise meta-analyses of direct evidence using the random-effects model with Stata V.14.0. Second, we will also perform a random-effects NMA within a Bayesian framework, using Markov chain Monte Carlo in WinBUGS V.1.4.3. Where different measures are used to assess the same outcome, continuous outcomes data will be pooled with standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous outcomes will be analyzed by calculating the Odds ratio (OR).

Missing dichotomous outcome data will be managed according to the intention to treat (ITT) principle, and all the dropouts after randomization will be considered to be non-responders. Missing continuous outcome data will be analyzed, using the completer data. When P values, t values, CI or SE are reported in articles, SD will be calculated from their values. If SD is/are missing, attempts will be made to obtain these data through contacting trial authors. When this fails, they will be borrowed from the other trials in the network or from other published reports.

Potential Scale Reduction Factors (PSRF) will be used to evaluate the model convergence. The closer PSRF will be to 1, the better the model convergence is. A two-tailed value of P ≤ 0.05 will be considered to indicate statistical significance. We will use the test to estimate the presence of statistical heterogeneity with threshold as P ≤ 0.05. The I2 test will be used to estimate the degree of heterogeneity as truncating I2 ≥50% as considerable heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis will be conducted if the heterogeneity is significant. The purpose of these studies will explore whether such factor(s) might have an impact on our results.

2.12 Confidence in cumulative estimate

We will use the recommended rating, development and rating methods to assess the quality of direct and indirect evidence. The quality of evidence will be graded as high, moderate or low. The studies will be performed by two independent reviewers. If there are different opinions, the decision will be made after consultation with the third investigator.

2.13 Assessment of publication bias

Bergg’s and Egger’s tests will be used to help distinguish the asymmetry due to publication bias [25, 26].

3. Discussion

At present, MBSR, CBT and DBT are common psychotherapies in the management of the hypertension patients with depression and anxiety, and a sizeable proportion of hypertension patients are responded positively to those psychotherapies [27, 28]. However, the effect of MBSR, CBT, and DBT in the combination treatment of hypertension with depression and anxiety is still unclear. We have planned this systematic review to address this current knowledge gap.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a network meta-analysis on the MBSR, CBT and DBT, and to determine the relative effects and/or safety way to hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety. Our study may provide hypertension patients with the reliable evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychotherapy, which might contribute to future clinical trials and study design. In the current study, we will only include RCTs. Of course, in order to ensure that the RCTs literature included is comprehensive, we will track and retrieve relevant references for published systematic evaluations and meta-analyses. In addition, although there are a large number of literatures on the effect of psychotherapies and other interventions, the number of literatures on RCTs may also be relatively small and the literature quality is not high, which may affect the results of this study.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr Jinhui Tian, The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Lanzhou University for helpful suggestions on search strategy and data analysis.

Abbreviations

MBSR

Mindfulness-based stress reduction

CBT

Cognitive behavior therapy

DBT

Dialectical behavior therapy

RCTs

Randomized controlled trials

BP

blood pressure

OR

Odds ratio

WMD

Weighted mean difference

95%CI

95% Credible intervals

PSRF

Potential scale reduction factors

Data Availability

All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The authors are grateful to Dr Jinhui Tian, The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Lanzhou University for helpful suggestions on search strategy and data analysis. This work is supported by The 2020 Science and Technology Project of Chengguan District, Lanzhou [grant number 2020-2-11-16], The Talent Introduction Program of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine [grant number 2016YJRC-01] and The University Innovation Capacity Improvement Project in Gansu Province [grant number 2020B-153].

References

  • 1.Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, et al. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005, 365(9455):217–223. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ovbiagele B, Nguyen-Huynh MN. Stroke epidemiology: advancing our understanding of disease mechanism and therapy. Neurotherapeutics. 2011,8(3):319–329. doi: 10.1007/s13311-011-0053-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yu B, Chen X, Li S. Globalization, cross-culture stress and health. Chin J Epidemiol. 2014,35(3):338–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhang Y, Chen Y, Ma L. Depression and cardiovascular disease in elderly: Current understanding. J Clin Neurosci. 2018, 47:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.09.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cohen BE, Edmondson D, Kronish IM. State of the art review: Depression, stress, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Hypertens. 2015,28(11):1295–1302. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpv047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bussotti M, Sommaruga M. Anxiety and depression in patients with pulmonary hypertension: impact and management challenges. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2018,14:349–360. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S147173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization, WHO marks 20th Anniversary of World Mental Health Day. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2012/mental_health_day_20121009/en/. Accessed December 11, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hafner S, Baumert J, Emeny RT, et al. Hypertension and depressed symptomatology: a cluster related to the activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Findings from population based KORA F4 study. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013,38(10):2065–2074. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ginty AT, Carroll D, Roseboom TJ, et al. Depression and anxiety are associated with a diagnosis of hypertension 5 years later in a cohort of late middle-aged men and women. J Hum Hypertens. 2013,27(3):187–190. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2012.18 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Meng L, Chen D, Yang Y, et al. Depression increases the risk of hypertension incidence: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Hypertens. 2012,30(5):842–851. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835080b7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pan Y, Cai W, Cheng Q, et al. Association between anxiety and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2015,11:1121–1130. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S77710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhang Y. Clinical comparative analysis on depression and hypertension in patients. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology. 2011,19(04):397–399. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kretchy IA, Owusu-Daaku FT, Danquah SA. Mental health in hypertension: assessing symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress on anti-hypertensive medication adherence. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2014,8:25. doi: 10.1186/1752-4458-8-25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Riegel G, Moreira LB, Fuchs SC, et al. Long-term effectiveness of non-drug recommendations to treat hypertension in a clinical setting. Am J Hypertens. 2012, 25(11):1202–1208. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2012.103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ferdinand KC, Nasser SA. Management of essential hypertension. Cardiol Clin. 2017,35(2):231–246. doi: 10.1016/j.ccl.2016.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ahmadpanah M, Paghale SJ, Bakhtyari A, et al. Effects of psychotherapy in combination with pharmacotherapy, when compared to pharmacotherapy only on blood pressure, depression, and anxiety in female patients with hypertension. J Health Psychol. 2016,21(7):1216–1227. doi: 10.1177/1359105314550350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Marciniak R, Šumec R, Vyhnálek M, et al. The effect of mindfulness-sased stress reduction (MBSR) on depression, cognition, and immunity in mild cognitive impairment: A pilot feasibility study. Clin Interv Aging. 2020,15:1365–1381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alsubaie M, Abbott R, Dunn B, et al. Mechanisms of action in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in people with physical and/or psychological conditions: A systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017,55:74–91. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.López-López JA, Davies SR, Caldwell DM, et al. The process and delivery of CBT for depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2019,49(12):1937–1947. doi: 10.1017/S003329171900120X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fitzpatrick S, Bailey K, Rizvi SL. Changes in emotions over the course of dialectical behavior therapy and the moderating role of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Behav Ther. 2020,51(6):946–957. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2019.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang J, Tang S, Zhou W. Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy on work stress and mental health of psychiatric nurses. Psychiatr Danub. 2018,30(2):189–196. doi: 10.24869/psyd.2018.189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Compen F, Bisseling E, Schellekens M, et al. Face-to-face and internet-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy compared with treatment as usual in reducing psychological distress in patients with cancer: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018,36(23):2413–2421. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nissen ER O’Connor M, Kaldo V, et al. Internet-delivered mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for anxiety and depression in cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2020,29(1):68–75. doi: 10.1002/pon.5237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, et al. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014,9(7):e99682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. J Biometrics. 1994,50:1088–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997,315(7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tulloh RMR, Garratt V, Tagney J, et al. A pilot randomised controlled trial investigating a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) intervention in individuals with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH): the PATHWAYS study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018,4:78. doi: 10.1186/s40814-018-0270-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ruangthai R, Phoemsapthawee J. Combined exercise training improves blood pressure and antioxidant capacity in elderly individuals with hypertension. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2019,17(2):67–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jesf.2019.03.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stephan Doering

11 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-36202Effect comparison of Psychotherapies on hypertension with depression and/or anxiety: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by September 30, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephan Doering, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the very interesting report protocol, which addresses an important issue.

However, from my point of view, publication at this stage is not yet reasonable due to following concerns:

1.) Improving scope and rigor of your argumentation is highly recommended:

- Starting with the research question in the title since you do not want to compare psychotherapies as such but rather specific methods (MBSR, DBT, CBT).

- Late in the text (2.8. outcomes), you make it clear that, in addition to examining improvements in psychological distress, you also want to analyze the potential reduction in blood pressure.

- The argumentative approach to the research question is vague. It is not clear whether you want to examine improvement in depression, anxiety, and blood pressure or of all three factors in your meta-analysis. It remains unclear and is not adequately supported with citations as to why you choose DBT, CBT, and MBSR.

- The argumentation why the research question is useful still seems a bit weak. You could base your argument on well-documented evidence and argue: High prevalence of hypertension in population; high prevalences of depression and anxiety in hypertension; associations of mental distress and important outcomes in hypertension (mortality, quality of life, disease progression, health behavior, utilization patterns, etc.). Next, the evidence for the efficacy of the therapeutic procedures studied, which you now want to examine with the meta-analysis.

2.) Please improve citation. Some of the cited references given are insufficient, misleading or incorrect. Examples:

- (1) Hu et al. (2015) is not the original source of the statement given. It'd rather be: Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005 Jan 15-21;365(9455):217-23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1. PMID: 15652604.

- (6) again the cited source seems to be not the original reference, it'd rather be World Health Organization

- The selection of therapeutic methods (DBT, CBT, MBSR) studied is not sufficiently supported with references. Note that source (17), to which your argument refers, that these treatments are "the most popular psychotherapies depression and/or anxiety in hypertension patients", seems to be a mere study protocol which doesn't mention DBT and MBSR at all.

- Please note that citation (27), which is supposed to support your statement: "At present, MBSR, CBT and DBT are common psychotherapies in the management of the hypertension patients with depression and anxiety..." refers to Combined Exercise Training, an apparently entirely different form of therapy.

- I could not find a reference to the DBT in your text

3.) You could also slightly sharpen the methodological description: for example, a more comprehensive and precise listing of the inclusion criteria would be useful (definition of the therapy methods studied e.g. length of interventions; inpatient/outpatient; outcomes collected in the included studies and their measurement, minimum sample size; follow-up-timing etc).

4.) Since the draft is a registered study protocol, I suspected that the searching and data analysis was still pending. In point 2.4 you write that the information search was finished in December 2021. Is this correct?

5.) Language: The submitted manuscript contains a number of grammatical errors and lacks comprehensibility in several places. For example, I do not understand the first sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction.

Reviewer #2: First, you should use proper English.

Using "will" is inappropriate in most parts.

It is appropriate to use the past tense for what you have analyzed.

You should also avoid writing in a way that makes it unclear whether it is your idea or a cited finding. In particular, there are a number of sentences that are described as general findings but do not have citations attached.

Major point

1. Introduction in abstract

The following is an exaggeration, because it is stated as if all hypertensive patients are suffering from depression and anxiety as well.

“However the outcomes of medications maybe compromised in some individuals without following medical instruction, partially due to these hypertension patients are co-exist with depression and/or anxiety.”

The following leads to the erroneous conclusion that measures to address the risk factor will improve hypertension.

“Because depression/or anxiety is an independent risk factor for hypertension, stress relieving would be an ideal management of hypertension. Psychotherapy for hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety improves psychological symptoms and controls BP.”

2. Introduction

Please add a reference to the following sentence.

“In addition to physical disability, psychological disturbance is another major concerns among these uncontrolled hypertension patients. “

“Rapid development and fast globalization perhaps contribute to the increased stress level via transforming our social organization. ”

From the findings of the literature in [3], the following statements are clearly overstated

“It has been demonstrated that significantly increased psychological intervention for the hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety over the last two decades [3].

3. Method

For example, please specify the Study protocol in the following form:

[The protocol of the present study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews]

You have narrowed your criteria for depression and anxiety to two: the PHQ-9 depression scale and the GAD-7 anxiety scale. Do you have any clear explanatory evidence that this does not constitute selection bias?

4. Results.

 There is no results chapter.

For example, please describe in the following way.

How many cases were included in the inclusion criteria, how many were excluded, and how the results differed for each study.

5. Discussion

Discussion is meaningless because there is no result.

6. Figure

Please create a figure of the literature search flow chart showing the number of literature hits for each literature search method. If you create a figure, please also create network diagrams of comparisons.

Minor point

AGREE II(The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and other tools, and consider whether a systematic review is sufficient in the first place or whether a meta-analysis is necessary.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 21;18(2):e0281469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281469.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Dec 2022

Dr. Stephan Doering

Academic Editor,

PLOS ONE

25 October 2022

Dear Dr Doering

We appreciate the constructive comments made by the reviewers and our responses are as follows:

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Acknowledged.

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Acknowledged.

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Acknowledged.

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Acknowledged.

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acknowledged.

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

We appreciate the positive comment made by the reviewer “Thank you for the very interesting report protocol, which addresses an important issue.”

However, from my point of view, publication at this stage is not yet reasonable due to following concerns:

1.) Improving scope and rigor of your argumentation is highly recommended:

- Starting with the research question in the title since you do not want to compare psychotherapies as such but rather specific methods (MBSR, DBT, CBT).

Effect of MBSR, DBT and CBT on the hypertension patients with depression/anxiety: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

- Late in the text (2.8. outcomes), you make it clear that, in addition to examining improvements in psychological distress, you also want to analyze the potential reduction in blood pressure.

To clarify this point, we have modified our manuscript, it now reads: “The primary outcomes are the modified depression and/or anxiety scores, by comparing prior to and post intervention. We will further determine the blood pressure prior to and post intervention from these cohorts, as objective evidence for improving the patients’ conditions.” (Methods, line 176 paragraph 2 page10)

- The argumentative approach to the research question is vague. It is not clear whether you want to examine improvement in depression, anxiety, and blood pressure or of all three factors in your meta-analysis. It remains unclear and is not adequately supported with citations as to why you choose DBT, CBT, and MBSR.

We have added the following sentence for clarification it now reads: “In this protocol, we intend to examine if these interventions improve depression, anxiety and blood pressure from these cohorts”. In addition, we have updated our cited references accordingly, it now reads: “It is reported that mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) [17, 18] and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) [19] have a good effect in treating chronic diseases patients, and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) [20] has a significant effect in management of depression and anxiety.” (Introduction, line 104 paragraph 1 page 6)

- The argumentation why the research question is useful still seems a bit weak. You could base your argument on well-documented evidence and argue:

a. High prevalence of hypertension in population;

b. high prevalence of depression and anxiety in hypertension;

c. associations of mental distress and important outcomes in hypertension (mortality, quality of life, disease progression, health behavior, utilization patterns, etc.).

d. Next, the evidence for the efficacy of the therapeutic procedures studied, which you now want to examine with the meta-analysis.

Appreciate your constructive comments, we have revised our introduction accordingly, it now reads: “It is predicted that the number of hypertensive adults will reach 1.5 billion, which is ~ 30% of the world population by 2025, based on analysis of worldwide data of hypertension burden [1]. Hypertension is notoriously difficult to control, causing detrimental irreversible damage to the important system in the body, e.g. central nerves system and cardiovascular system. In addition to physical impact, psychological disturbance is another major concern among these uncontrolled hypertension patients [2]. Rapid economic development and fast globalization perhaps contribute to the increased stress to the general population via transforming our social organization [3]. The literature has accumulated evaluating the effect of psychological stress in cardiovascular field, including depression and anxiety [4, 5], which are mutually causal and affect each other, and further aggravate the psychological impairment. There are some reports, showing the efficacy of psychological intervention for the management of the patients with comorbidity of hypertension and depression/anxiety. We will explore/validate such findings, using meta-analysis in current study.

It has been reported that substantially increased volume of psychological intervention for the management of hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety over the last two decades [6]. Depression and anxiety are significant contributors to hypertension at the global level with huge economic burden. The World Mental Health Survey from 17 countries demonstrates that on average about 1 in 20 people reported having an episode of depression in the previous experience [7], suggesting common problem nowadays we face. It has reported that the incidence of depression in hypertension patients reached 20%, which is supported by the finding that cardiovascular disease patients have a higher incidence of psychological disorders, accompanied with increased the risk of cerebrovascular accident in the general population with anxiety and depression disorder [8]. This is supported by the finding from Netherlands for a 5-year study involving the 455,238 women, confirming a close correlation between hypertension and depression/anxiety. Furthermore, depression or anxiety increases 3.5 or 2.0 fold of the risk of hypertension from non-hypertensive people [9]. The finding from Netherlands is consistent with other regions, showing that depression or anxiety increases the risk of hypertension by 1.42 [10] or 1.55 [11] times. Patients with depression and anxiety usually presented with dizziness, headache and chest tightness [12], and often accompanied with negative emotions which impacted quality of life. Such phenomenon is attracted great attention from psychologists recognizing the needs from mental unstable patients [13].” (Introduction, line 57 paragraph 1 page 4)

2.) Please improve citation. Some of the cited references given are insufficient, misleading or incorrect. Examples:

- (1) Hu et al. (2015) is not the original source of the statement given. It'd rather be: Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005 Jan 15-21;365(9455):217-23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1. PMID: 15652604.

We have citated the suitable references accordingly:

1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, et al. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005,365(9455):217-223. (Reference, line 265 page 15)

- (6) again the cited source seems to be not the original reference, it'd rather be World Health Organization

An original reference has been cited accordingly:

7. World Health Organization, WHO marks 20th Anniversary of World Mental Health Day. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2012/mental_health_day_20121009/en/. Accessed December 11, 2014. (Reference, line 277 page 15)

- The selection of therapeutic methods (DBT, CBT, MBSR) studied is not sufficiently supported with references. Note that source (17), to which your argument refers, that these treatments are "the most popular psychotherapies depression and/or anxiety in hypertension patients", seems to be a mere study protocol which doesn't mention DBT and MBSR at all.

We apologies for this mistake, and have provided a suitable references supporting DBT and MBSR, it now reads:

“It is reported that mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) [17, 18] and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) [19] have a good effect in treating chronic diseases patients, and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) [20] has a significant effect in management of depression and anxiety.” (Introduction, line 102 paragraph 1 page 6)

20. Fitzpatrick S, Bailey K, Rizvi SL. Changes in emotions over the course of dialectical behavior therapy and the moderating role of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress sisorder. Behav Ther. 2020, 51(6):946-957.”

- Please note that citation (27), which is supposed to support your statement: "At present, MBSR, CBT and DBT are common psychotherapies in the management of the hypertension patients with depression and anxiety..." refers to Combined Exercise Training, an apparently entirely different form of therapy.

To reduce such confusion, we have selected the reference 26 only as individual therapy, and deleted reference 27 to avoid the combined therapy.

- I could not find a reference to the DBT in your text.

Apologies for this mistake. A suitable reference has been added, it now reads: “It is reported that mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) [17, 18] and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) [19] have a good effect in treating chronic diseases patients, and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) [20] has a significant effect in management of depression and anxiety.” (Introduction, line 102 paragraph 1 page 6)

20. Fitzpatrick S, Bailey K, Rizvi SL. Changes in emotions over the course of dialectical behavior therapy and the moderating role of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress sisorder. Behav Ther. 2020,51(6):946-957.” (Reference, line 382-384 page 16-17)

3.) You could also slightly sharpen the methodological description: for example, a more comprehensive and precise listing of the inclusion criteria would be useful (definition of the therapy methods studied e.g. length of interventions; inpatient/outpatient; outcomes collected in the included studies and their measurement, minimum sample size; follow-up-timing etc).

We have revised the Inclusion and Exclusion criteria in the Methods accordingly, it now reads: “

2.2. Inclusion criteria

2.2.1. Types of studies

We will include only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with MBSR, CBT, DBT.

2.2.2. Types of participants

1) Hypertension patients with depression or anxiety; 2) Hypertension patients who volunteer for psychotherapy; 3) inpatient/outpatient.

2.2.3. Types of interventions

The eligible interventions include MBSR, CBT, and DBT, the length of each intervention is 8-10 weeks, and the follow-up time is 1-3 months.

2.2.4. Types of comparators

The control interventions will be included drug therapy and exercise therapy (Yoga, Tai Chi, etc.).

2.2.5. Types of outcomes

The primary outcome indexes of the protocol are depression and anxiety score, and the secondary outcome indexes mainly include blood pressure and other outcome indexes reported in the literature.

2.3. Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria include:

1. Hypertension patients who receive any combination of two or more therapies other than MBSR, CBT and DBT.

2. Any hypertension patients treated with any psychotherapy other than the above.

3. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, experimental studies, mechanism discussions, experience summary and other research types of literature.

4. Repeatedly checked or published literature.

5. Incomplete data or information that does not indicate the end result and cannot be included.” (Methods, line 112 paragraph 3 page 6)

The current study is a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Thus, it will be depended on the studies selected that the length of interventions; inpatient/outpatient; outcomes and measurements, minimum sample size and follow-up-timing.

4.) Since the draft is a registered study protocol, I suspected that the searching and data analysis was still pending. In point 2.4 you write that the information search was finished in December 2021. Is this correct?

Apologies for this mistake, it actually is December 2022. We have modified our manuscript accordingly, it now reads: “A literature search for RCTs will be performed in five electronic databases from inception to December 2022,…” (Methods, line 138 paragraph 3 page 7)

5.) Language: The submitted manuscript contains a number of grammatical errors and lacks comprehensibility in several places. For example, I do not understand the first sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction.

The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker. And we have clarified this sentence in the Introduction section, it now reads: “It has been reported that substantially increased volume of psychological intervention for the management of hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety over the last two decades [6].” (Introduction, line 68 paragraph 2 page 4)

6. Bussotti M, Sommaruga M. Anxiety and depression in patients with pulmonary hypertension: impact and management challenges. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2018,14:349-360.

Reviewer #2:

First, you should use proper English.

The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker.

Using "will" is inappropriate in most parts. It is appropriate to use the past tense for what you have analyzed.

The current study is protocol, the research has not started when we designed and wrote it.

You should also avoid writing in a way that makes it unclear whether it is your idea or a cited finding. In particular, there are a number of sentences that are described as general findings but do not have citations attached.

We have modified accordingly for the full manuscript.

Major point

1. Introduction in abstract

The following is an exaggeration, because it is stated as if all hypertensive patients are suffering from depression and anxiety as well. “However the outcomes of medications maybe compromised in some individuals without following medical instruction, partially due to these hypertension patients are co-exist with depression and/or anxiety.”

We have modified this point in the Introduction section, it now reads: “Due to quite large number of hypertension patients co-exist with depression and/or anxiety, and non-cooperated with medical instruction, consequently management of BP is impaired with serious complications, resulting in compromised quality of life.” (Abstract, line 23 paragraph 1 page 2)

The following leads to the erroneous conclusion that measures to address the risk factor will improve hypertension. “Because depression/or anxiety is an independent risk factor for hypertension, stress relieving would be an ideal management of hypertension. Psychotherapy for hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety improves psychological symptoms and controls BP.”

We have modified this point, it now reads: “Depression and/or anxiety are independent risk factors of hypertension, which is supported by the finding that there is close correlation between hypertension are depression/or anxiety. Psychotherapy (non-drug treatment) maybe useful for hypertensive patients with depression and/or anxiety to improve their negative emotions.” (Abstract, line 28 paragraph 1 page 2)

2. Introduction

Please add a reference to the following sentence.

“In addition to physical disability, psychological disturbance is another major concerns among these uncontrolled hypertension patients.”

We have added the reference accordingly.

2. Ovbiagele B, Nguyen-Huynh MN. Stroke epidemiology: advancing our understanding of disease mechanism and therapy. Neurotherapeutics. 2011,8(3):319-329. (Reference, line ** paragraph * page *)

“Rapid development and fast globalization perhaps contribute to the increased stress level via transforming our social organization.” From the findings of the literature in [3], the following statements are clearly overstated. “It has been demonstrated that significantly increased psychological intervention for the hypertension patients with depression and/or anxiety over the last two decades [3].”

We have modified our statement, it now reads: “Rapid development and fast globalization perhaps contribute to the increased stress level via transforming our social organization [3]. The literature has accumulated evaluating the effect of psychological stress in cardiovascular field, including depression stress and anxiety stress [4, 5].” (Introduction, line 61 paragraph 1 page 4)

3. Yu B, Chen X, Li S. Globalization, cross-culture stress and health. Chin J Epidemiol. 2014,35(3):338-341.

4. Zhang Y, Chen Y, Ma L. Depression and cardiovascular disease in elderly: Current understanding. J Clin Neurosci. 2018, 47:1-5.

5. Cohen BE, Edmondson D, Kronish IM. State of the Art Review: Depression, Stress, Anxiety, and Cardiovascular Disease. Am J Hypertens. 2015 ,28(11):1295-1302.

3. Method

For example, please specify the Study protocol in the following form:

[The protocol of the present study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews]

We have modified it accordingly, it now reads: “

2.5 Register

The protocol of the present study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (Prospero registration number: CRD42021248566).” (Methods, line 144 paragraph 4 page 7)

You have narrowed your criteria for depression and anxiety to two: the PHQ-9 depression scale and the GAD-7 anxiety scale. Do you have any clear explanatory evidence that this does not constitute selection bias?

We have modified it accordingly, it now reads: “We will utilize the data available from the selected literatures, but not only narrow our study into the PHQ-9 depression scale and the GAD-7 anxiety scale. The primary outcomes are the modified depression and/or anxiety scores, by comparing prior to and post intervention. We will further compare the blood pressure prior to and post intervention, as objective evidence for improving the patients’ conditions.” (Methods, line 176 paragraph 2 page 10)

4. Results.

?There is no results chapter.

For example, please describe in the following way.

How many cases were included in the inclusion criteria, how many were excluded, and how the results differed for each study.

Apologies for this mistake. There is no result in the current protocol yet. The case number will be quantified in our future study.

5. Discussion

Discussion is meaningless because there is no result.

Again, we apologies for this mistake. This is no full discussion in the protocol. Instead of discussion, we summaries our protocol in this section with limited highlights and limitation.

6. Figure

Please create a figure of the literature search flow chart showing the number of literature hits for each literature search method. If you create a figure, please also create network diagrams of comparisons.

We apologies for this mistake, however the study is only a protocol, and the number of literature hits for each literature search method will be shown in the next step of study.

Minor point

AGREE II (The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and other tools, and consider whether a systematic review is sufficient in the first place or whether a meta-analysis is necessary.

We believe that a meta-analysis is needed for the current study after careful evaluation.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

We choose yes for this point

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acknowledged.

We have revised our manuscript accordingly, and hope our manuscript meet the standard for publication in PLOS ONE.

Yours sincerely

Jingchun Fan

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Stephan Doering

25 Jan 2023

Effect of MBSR, DBT and CBT on the hypertension patients with depression/anxiety: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-36202R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stephan Doering, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Stephan Doering

10 Feb 2023

PONE-D-21-36202R1

Effect of MBSR, DBT and CBT on the hypertension patients with depression/anxiety: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Zhang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Stephan Doering

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES