Review: cognitive behavioural therapy is more effective than control and similarly effective to pharmacotherapy for generalised anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitte K. Meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatments for generalized anxiety disorder: a comparison with pharmacotherapy. Psychol Bull 2005;131:785–95.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does cognitive behavioural therapy work as effectively as pharmacotherapy for people with generalised anxiety disorder? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. ### ![Graphic][6] Data sources: MEDLINE and PsychINFO (search date May 2002) plus hand searches of reference lists and scientific meeting abstracts. Unpublished reports were identified using the Internet and by contacting pharmaceutical companies and individual investigators. ### ![Graphic][7] Study selection and analysis: Eligible studies were controlled trials of cognitive behavioural therapy and/or pharmacotherapy for people with generalised anxiety disorder. Exclusions: not published in English or German; case studies; pharmacotherapy for <14 days; studies using CBT techniques as a control; or insufficient information to calculate effect size and other statistical data. Data were extracted on anxiety, depression, quality of life, and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPsychological%2Bbulletin%26rft.stitle%253DPsychol%2BBull%26rft.aulast%253DMitte%26rft.auinit1%253DK.%26rft.volume%253D131%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D785%26rft.epage%253D795%26rft.atitle%253DMeta-analysis%2Bof%2Bcognitive-behavioral%2Btreatments%2Bfor%2Bgeneralized%2Banxiety%2Bdisorder%253A%2Ba%2Bcomparison%2Bwith%2Bpharmacotherapy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252F0033-2909.131.5.785%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16187860%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.785&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16187860&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F9%2F2%2F43.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232450400012&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".