Baseline Severity as a Moderator of the Waiting List–Controlled Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With Symptom Change in Social Anxiety Disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) can be adequately treated with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, there is a large gap in knowledge on factors associated with prognosis, and it is unclear whether symptom severity predicts response to CBT for SAD. Objective: To examine baseline SAD symptom severity as a moderator of the association between CBT and symptom change in patients with SAD. Data Sources: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA), PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1990, to January 13, 2023. Primary search topics were social anxiety disorder, cognitive behavior therapy, and randomized controlled trial. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing CBT with being on a waiting list and using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) in adults with a primary clinical diagnosis of SAD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Authors of included studies were approached to provide individual-level data. Data were extracted by pairs of authors following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. An IPDMA was conducted using a 2-stage approach for the association of CBT with change in LSAS scores from baseline to posttreatment and for the interaction effect of baseline LSAS score by condition using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the baseline to posttreatment change in symptom severity measured by the LSAS. Results: A total of 12 studies including 1246 patients with SAD (mean [SD] age, 35.3 [10.9] years; 738 [59.2%] female) were included in the meta-analysis. A waiting list-controlled association between CBT and pretreatment to posttreatment LSAS change was found (b = -20.3; 95% CI, -24.9 to -15.6; P < .001; Cohen d = -0.95; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.73). Baseline LSAS scores moderated the differences between CBT and waiting list with respect to pretreatment to posttreatment symptom reductions (b = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.06; P = .009), indicating that individuals with severe symptoms had larger waiting list-controlled symptom reductions after CBT (Cohen d = -1.13 [95% CI, -1.39 to -0.88] for patients with very severe SAD; Cohen d = -0.54 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.29] for patients with mild SAD). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and IPDMA, higher baseline SAD symptom severity was associated with greater (absolute but not relative) symptom reductions after CBT in patients with SAD. The findings contribute to personalized care by suggesting that clinicians can confidently offer CBT to individuals with severe SAD symptoms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,126 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,041 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».