Comparing Treatment Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy and Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy in High-Quality Studies: A Systematic Review and Effect Size Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this article is to compare treatment efficacy of cognitivebehavior therapy (CBT) and short-term dynamic psychotherapy (STDP) in highquality studies.Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Medline and PsycINFO.Effect sizes were calculated.Results: Eleven publications (seven individual studies) respected the inclusion criteria.The results reveal that both CBT and STDP are efficacious treatments.In anxiety disorders, CBT shows a small to moderate advantage over STDP in primary symptoms from pretreatment to post treatment and a negligible to moderate advantage from pretreatment to follow-up.Results are mixed in personality disorders.In depressive disorders, CBT shows a negligible to small advantage from pretreatment to post treatment in primary symptoms, but STDP shows a small advantage from pretreatment to follow-up.In bulimia nervosa, CBT shows a small advantage in primary symptoms from pretreatment to post treatment.Differences are also observed in secondary symptoms for each disorder.Post hoc analyses revealed that STDP shows a negligible to small advantage over CBT from post treatment to follow-up.Conclusion: Differences in treatment efficacy seem to vary according to disorders, type of treatment outcomes (primary or secondary), and measurement time (post treatment or follow-up), but results have to be interpreted cautiously.
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 | 0.047 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".