Review Cochrane review: Exercise for depression 2026 Clegg et al

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)

Abstract​

Rationale: Depression is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is often treated with antidepressants or psychological therapy, or both, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. This review updates one first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression in adults compared with no intervention, waiting list control or placebo, or where exercise is used as an adjunct to an established treatment that is received by both exercising and non-exercising groups. To determine the effectiveness of exercise compared with other active interventions for depression in adults (psychological therapies, pharmacological treatments or alternative interventions such as light therapy).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) to November 2013. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from 2013 to November 2023. No date or language restrictions were applied.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which exercise was compared to no treatment, inactive treatment or active treatment in adults (aged 18 years and over) with depression. We included trials that randomised individual participants or clusters. We excluded trials of postnatal depression. Two authors independently undertook study selection.

Outcomes: The primary outcome we assessed was a measure of depression or mood at the end of treatment and at any longer-term follow-up. Other outcomes were treatment acceptability, quality of life, cost and adverse events.

Risk of bias: We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 1. Two authors independently performed the risk of bias assessment.

Synthesis methods: Two authors independently extracted data on outcomes at the end of the trial and end of follow-up (if available). We calculated effect sizes for each trial using Hedges' g method and a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for the overall pooled effect for continuous data, and risk ratios for dichotomous data. Where trials used a number of different tools to assess depression, we included only the main outcome measure in our meta-analyses. Where trials provided several 'doses' of exercise, we used data from the largest dose and performed sensitivity analysis using the lower dose.

We performed subgroup analysis to explore the influence of diagnostic method, exercise intensity, number of exercise sessions, type of exercise and type of control (i.e. placebo, no treatment, waiting list, usual care and self monitoring). Through our sensitivity analyses, we explored the influence of study risk of bias.

Included studies: We included 73 RCTs (at least 4985 participants) in the review, 69 of which contributed data to our meta-analyses.

Synthesis of results: For the 57 trials (2189 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, the pooled SMD for depressive symptoms at the end of treatment was -0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.52; low-certainty evidence), showing that exercise may result in a reduction in depressive symptoms. When we included only the seven trials (447 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD was smaller (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.04). Pooled data from the nine trials (405 participants) with long-term follow-up provided very uncertain evidence about the effect of exercise on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.06; very low certainty evidence).

Ten trials (414 participants) compared exercise with psychological therapy, finding there is probably little to no difference in their effect on depressive symptoms at the end of treatment (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.23; moderate-certainty evidence). There were similar results at long-term follow-up (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.26; 4 studies, 114 participants; low-certainty evidence).

Five trials (330 participants) compared exercise with pharmacological treatment, finding there may be little to no difference in their effect on depressive symptoms at the end of treatment (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.10; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain at long-term follow-up (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.00; 1 study, 58 participants; very low certainty evidence).

There did not appear to be a difference between exercise and other interventions in terms of treatment acceptability, as measured by participants completing the study (moderate to low certainty evidence). Results for the outcome 'quality of life' were inconsistent (low to very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not common in any comparison, but included musculoskeletal injuries and depression affecting those undertaking exercise, and diarrhoea, sexual dysfunction and fatigue reported by those receiving sertraline. Many trials were affected by multiple sources of bias: randomisation was adequately concealed in only 22 studies, only 31 used intention-to-treat analyses, and only 23 used blinded outcome assessors. Blinding of those receiving and those delivering the interventions is inherently difficult; we judged all studies to be at high risk of performance bias. Many trials used participant self-report rating scales, which have the potential to bias findings.

Authors' conclusions: Exercise may be moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression. Exercise appears to be no more or less effective than psychological or pharmacological treatments, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials. Long-term follow-up was rare. The addition of 35 RCTs (at least 2526 participants) to this update has had very little effect on the estimate of the benefit of exercise on symptoms of depression. If further research is to take place, it should focus on improving trial quality, assessing which characteristics of exercise are effective for different people, and exploring health equity.

Open access
 
I don’t understand why they even do the analysis when the evidence is so poor. How does it provide any valuable information?

Surely, the recommendation should be that there is no indication for using exercise as a treatment for depression, and that better studies are required if it’s going to be assessed in a research setting.

@Jonathan Edwards am I going mad?
 
Well they were about as damning by faint praise as they could be even if they did say 'may'.
That might get it through peer review but ensure that nobody used it to produce a GRADE-based guideline I suppose.

We probably all went mad long ago.
Are you saying it wouldn’t get through peer review if they just said there is no evidence because the trials are too poor?
 
This is a very different interpretation than what we see in the ME/CFS review, where the evidence is far worse and the conclusions are almost marketing material. The evidence for ME/CFS is far worse than this and the review, which similarly only includes a small % of published trials, is basically a glowing recommendation compared to this. It shows how you can completely change the 'conclusions' (i.e. interpretation) of a review by simply changing the people and the biases they have. Which is an entirely useless process.
The addition of 35 RCTs (at least 2526 participants) to this update has had very little effect on the estimate of the benefit of exercise on symptoms of depression.
Especially this. Obviously there have been way more than 35 RCTs, this is just those they chose to include, likely biased towards finding better outcomes (the positive bias towards this being a thing is more than obvious), and yet they admit that they didn't add anything. Which, duh, they're identical, how does doing the same thing dozens, even hundreds of times, yield more useful data?
If further research is to take place, it should focus on improving trial quality, assessing which characteristics of exercise are effective for different people, and exploring health equity.
Which sidesteps the issue of whether there is even a need for more. It's obvious that this advice is misguided, was never based on any real evidence. This is the best evidence they can come up, and they tried their best to make it positive. So what is the value of more 'research'? Obviously it won't be higher quality, why would it? Assessing the characteristics of exercise is entirely useless, this is exactly what was happening in the 35 RCTs they chose to include since it has long been decided that the evidence is good enough to make it a strong recommendation, and in the many more they excluded. Exploring health equity is just nonsense, they just put this there to keep the wheel spinning.

All of this is up to the funders and regulators who approve studies. They choose to fund and approve an infinite loop of failure where the same thing is tried again and again until it gives the answers they want. It never does, so they just say it anyway. When there is way more than enough to justify shutting the whole thing down, what do they do? Call for more of the exact same, regardless of some pretense about "do it again, but this time good".

Evidence-based medicine, where neither evidence nor medicine matter, and even "based" doesn't really mean anything. A similar review was published last year. It showed similar null results and high bias, how there was never actually anything there. And this isn't even limited to exercise for depression studies, it's literally all of non-pharmaceutical evidence-based medicine that has been revealed to be a complete sham, but it is desired as the future of medicine, and so it will continue scamming the public with junk nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom