Effectiveness of psychotherapy for severe somatoform disorder: meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with severe somatoform disorder (in secondary and tertiary care) typically experience functional impairment associated with physical symptoms and mental distress. Although psychotherapy is the preferred treatment, its effectiveness remains to be demonstrated. AIMS: To examine the effectiveness of psychotherapy for severe somatoform disorder in secondary and tertiary care compared with treatment as usual (TAU) but not waiting-list conditions. METHOD: Main inclusion criteria were presence of a somatoform disorder according to established diagnostic criteria and receiving psychotherapy for somatoform disorder in secondary and tertiary care. Both randomised and non-randomised trials were included. The evaluated outcome domains were physical symptoms, psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, anger, general symptoms) and functional impairment (health, life satisfaction, interpersonal problems, maladaptive cognitions and behaviour). RESULTS: Ten randomised and six non-randomised trials were included, comprising 890 patients receiving psychotherapy and 548 patients receiving TAU. Psychotherapy was more effective than TAU for physical symptoms (d = 0.80 v. d = 0.31, P<0.05) and functional impairment (d = 0.45 v. d = 0.15, P<0.01), but not for psychological symptoms (d = 0.75 v. d = 0.51, P = 0.21). These effects were maintained at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Overall findings suggest that psychotherapy is effective in severe somatoform disorder. Future randomised controlled studies should examine specific interventions and mechanisms of change.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".