Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Mental Disorders in Adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is a first-line treatment for most mental disorders. However, no meta-analytic study has yet integrated the results of randomized clinical trials on CBT across different disorders, using uniform methodologies and providing a complete overview of the field. Objective: To examine the effect sizes of CBT for 4 anxiety disorders, 2 eating disorders, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychotic and bipolar disorders on symptoms of the respective disorders using uniform methodologies for data extraction, risk of bias (RoB) assessment, and meta-analytic techniques. Data Sources: Major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase for all disorders) were searched up to January 1, 2024, for each disorder separately. Data analysis was performed from August 2024 to January 2025. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing CBT with inactive control conditions in adults with 1 of the mental disorders established through a clinical interview were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Basic characteristics of patients, CBT, and studies were extracted. RoB was assessed with the Cochrane RoB tool 2. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (Hedges g) indicating the difference between CBT and controls at posttreatment on symptoms of the respective disorders. Results: A total of 375 trials (423 comparisons) between CBT and controls were included among 32 968 patients. The overall mean (SD) patient age was 43.4 (13.7) years, and the mean (SD) proportion of women was 0.68 (0.24). Effect sizes for CBT compared to all control conditions (g) were lower than 0.5 for bipolar and psychotic disorder; between 0.5 and 1.0 for panic, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety disorders, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorders, depression, and OCD; and larger than 1.0 for PTSD and specific phobias (range of effect sizes: 0.31 for bipolar disorder to 1.27 for PTSD). Large effect sizes (g > 0.94) were observed in waitlist-controlled trials, a control condition mostly used in anxiety and eating disorders, PTSD, and OCD. Trials using care as usual showed more modest effect sizes (0.22-1.13). Study dropout rates within the CBT conditions ranged from 8% for specific phobia to 24% for PTSD. Conclusions and Relevance: In this unified series of meta-analyses, CBT was probably effective in the treatment of mental disorders, including major depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, OCD, and eating disorders, and possibly effective in psychotic and bipolar disorders. However, the effect sizes depended on the type of control condition.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».