The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses.

TLDR: The 16 meta-analyses reviewed support the efficacy of CBT for many disorders and are consistent with other review methodologies that also provide support for the efficacy CBT.

About: This article is published in Clinical Psychology Review.The article was published on 2006-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 2856 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Cognitive behavioral therapy & Panic disorder.

Figures

Table 1 Meta-analyses of cognitive therapy outcomes

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses" ?

This review summarizes the current meta-analysis literature on treatment outcomes of CBT for a wide range of psychiatric disorders. The 16 meta-analyses the authors reviewed support the efficacy of CBT for many disorders. While limitations of the meta-analytic approach need to be considered in interpreting the results of this review, their findings are consistent with other review methodologies that also provide support for the efficacy CBT. Yet, many questions remain regarding the overall effectiveness of CBT, its differential effectiveness by disorder, the nature of the control groups by which its effectiveness has been established, and the extent to which its effects persist following the cessation of treatment. In this paper the authors review evidence from meta-analyses that address these questions. Their approach is unique in that the authors systematically summarize findings across high-quality meta-analyses for 16 different disorders. 

Q2. What are the future works in "The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses" ?

Such information also informs power analyses for future primary studies ( Wilkinson, 1999 ). Future meta-analyses will continue to face the challenges associated with long-term findings such as variable follow-up assessment time-points across studies and the handling of data for patients who drop out of studies during the follow-up period ( Dobson, 1989 ). In some cases, such factors can be quantitatively assessed and incorporated into a meta-analysis as moderator variables. Another limitation of averaging effect sizes is that striking successes and failures may be overlooked and these are important in interpreting outcome findings. 

Q3. What are the challenges of future meta-analyses?

Future meta-analyses will continue to face the challenges associated with long-term findings such as variable follow-up assessment time-points across studies and the handling of data for patients who drop out of studies during the follow-up period (Dobson, 1989). 

Q4. What was the mean effect size of CBT compared to no treatment?

The mean effect size of CBT compared to no treatment was 0.35, equal to that of hormonal therapy, and superior to behavioral therapy. 

Q5. What are the limitations of averaging effect sizes?

Another limitation of averaging effect sizes is that striking successes and failures may be overlooked and these are important in interpreting outcome findings. 

Q6. What are the main obstacles to the examination of long-term effects?

Despite these obstacles, the examination of long-term effects has criticalimplications for the viability of treatments, treatment recommendations and decision making, and the determination of cost-benefit ratios and economic efficiency. 

Q7. What is the impressive effect size of the CBT treatment?

Perhaps most impressive is that the CBT treatment showed virtually no bslippageQ in effect size, ( 0.07) by 1-year follow-up as compared to sizable slippage ( 0.46) for pharmacological treatment.