Effect sizes of randomized-controlled studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders over the past 30 years

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102553
Stefan G. Hofmann, Chantal Kasch, Andreas Reis
{"title":"Effect sizes of randomized-controlled studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders over the past 30 years","authors":"Stefan G. Hofmann,&nbsp;Chantal Kasch,&nbsp;Andreas Reis","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for the range of anxiety disorders as demonstrated in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted over the past 30 years.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To examine the change of CBT effect sizes over time, we tested whether publication year was a significant moderator.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>We pooled studies from three previously published meta-analyses and searched three electronic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science) to identify any additional studies published from February 1, 2022 to January 24, 2025. The final analysis included 49 studies comprising a total of 3645 participants.</div></div><div><h3>Study selection</h3><div>We selected RCTs comparing CBT for anxiety disorders with psychological or pill control conditions.</div></div><div><h3>Data extraction</h3><div>Two independent raters used predefined data fields, including study quality indicators.</div></div><div><h3>Data synthesis</h3><div>The mean effect size of all RCTs comparing CBT vs. controls revealed a Hedges' <em>g</em> of 0.51, 95 % <em>CI</em> [0.40, 0.62], with significant differences in effect sizes between the diagnostic groups. Uncontrolled pre-post effect size calculations revealed a large effect for CBT, Hedges' <em>g</em> = 1.18, 95 % <em>CI</em> [1.01, 1.34], and a medium effect for the control conditions, Hedges' <em>g</em> = 0.59, 95 % <em>CI</em> [0.47, 0.70]. A linear meta-regression of publication year on effect sizes (Hedges <em>g</em>) showed no significant change in effect sizes as compared to the control conditions over the span of the last 30 years (<em>B</em> = −0.008, <em>SE</em> = 0.006, <em>t</em>(47) = −1.18, <em>p</em> = 0.24).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Although CBT is an effective treatment for anxiety disorders, the effect sizes did not increase over the last 3 decades. This calls for studies on the processes of treatment change to improve the efficacy of CBT.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"117 ","pages":"Article 102553"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000194","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for the range of anxiety disorders as demonstrated in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted over the past 30 years.

Objective

To examine the change of CBT effect sizes over time, we tested whether publication year was a significant moderator.

Data sources

We pooled studies from three previously published meta-analyses and searched three electronic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science) to identify any additional studies published from February 1, 2022 to January 24, 2025. The final analysis included 49 studies comprising a total of 3645 participants.

Study selection

We selected RCTs comparing CBT for anxiety disorders with psychological or pill control conditions.

Data extraction

Two independent raters used predefined data fields, including study quality indicators.

Data synthesis

The mean effect size of all RCTs comparing CBT vs. controls revealed a Hedges' g of 0.51, 95 % CI [0.40, 0.62], with significant differences in effect sizes between the diagnostic groups. Uncontrolled pre-post effect size calculations revealed a large effect for CBT, Hedges' g = 1.18, 95 % CI [1.01, 1.34], and a medium effect for the control conditions, Hedges' g = 0.59, 95 % CI [0.47, 0.70]. A linear meta-regression of publication year on effect sizes (Hedges g) showed no significant change in effect sizes as compared to the control conditions over the span of the last 30 years (B = −0.008, SE = 0.006, t(47) = −1.18, p = 0.24).

Conclusion

Although CBT is an effective treatment for anxiety disorders, the effect sizes did not increase over the last 3 decades. This calls for studies on the processes of treatment change to improve the efficacy of CBT.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Effect sizes of randomized-controlled studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders over the past 30 years Editorial Board Why most research based on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test is unsubstantiated and uninterpretable: A response to Murphy and Hall (2024) Five-factor personality traits and functional somatic disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1