对创伤后应激障碍治疗介质的系统综述的担忧:Alpert及其同事的评论(2023)。

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102323
Jeffrey Sonis
{"title":"对创伤后应激障碍治疗介质的系统综述的担忧:Alpert及其同事的评论(2023)。","authors":"Jeffrey Sonis","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The systematic review by Alpert and colleagues (Clinical Psychology Reviews, </span><span>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102300</span><svg><path></path></svg><span><span>) suggests methodological standards for mediation analysis and evaluates the evidence for mediation of </span>PTSD<span> treatment effects in published research. Although the article articulates important methodological guidelines related to timing of treatment, mediator, and outcome, it fails to incorporate the insights of causal mediation analysis into the methodological standards. In particular, the systematic review does not recognize the limitations of using time, rather than PTSD treatment type, in mediation analyses and does not include an assessment of the potential impact of uncontrolled confounding between the mediator and the outcome in the included studies. The conclusions about mediators of PTSD treatments from this systematic review should be considered carefully.</span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concerns about a systematic review of mediators of PTSD treatments: A commentary on Alpert and colleagues (2023)\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Sonis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>The systematic review by Alpert and colleagues (Clinical Psychology Reviews, </span><span>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102300</span><svg><path></path></svg><span><span>) suggests methodological standards for mediation analysis and evaluates the evidence for mediation of </span>PTSD<span> treatment effects in published research. Although the article articulates important methodological guidelines related to timing of treatment, mediator, and outcome, it fails to incorporate the insights of causal mediation analysis into the methodological standards. In particular, the systematic review does not recognize the limitations of using time, rather than PTSD treatment type, in mediation analyses and does not include an assessment of the potential impact of uncontrolled confounding between the mediator and the outcome in the included studies. The conclusions about mediators of PTSD treatments from this systematic review should be considered carefully.</span></span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823000818\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823000818","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: 1

摘要

Alpert及其同事的系统综述(Clinical Psychology Reviews,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102300)提出了中介分析的方法标准,并在已发表的研究中评估了PTSD治疗效果的中介证据。尽管这篇文章阐述了与治疗时机、中介和结果相关的重要方法指南,但它未能将因果中介分析的见解纳入方法标准。特别是,系统综述没有认识到在中介分析中使用时间而不是创伤后应激障碍治疗类型的局限性,也没有包括对中介和纳入研究的结果之间不受控制的混杂的潜在影响的评估。应仔细考虑本系统综述中关于创伤后应激障碍治疗介质的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Concerns about a systematic review of mediators of PTSD treatments: A commentary on Alpert and colleagues (2023)

The systematic review by Alpert and colleagues (Clinical Psychology Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102300) suggests methodological standards for mediation analysis and evaluates the evidence for mediation of PTSD treatment effects in published research. Although the article articulates important methodological guidelines related to timing of treatment, mediator, and outcome, it fails to incorporate the insights of causal mediation analysis into the methodological standards. In particular, the systematic review does not recognize the limitations of using time, rather than PTSD treatment type, in mediation analyses and does not include an assessment of the potential impact of uncontrolled confounding between the mediator and the outcome in the included studies. The conclusions about mediators of PTSD treatments from this systematic review should be considered carefully.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Factors related to help-seeking and service utilization for professional mental healthcare among young people: An umbrella review Positive health outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep and paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates Gender nonconformity and common mental health problems: A 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