MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945841514 · doi:10.1177/0706743719839381

Internet Interventions for Adults with Anxiety and Mood Disorders: A Narrative Umbrella Review of Recent Meta-Analyses

2019· review· en· W2945841514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gerhard Andersson, Per Carlbring, Nickolai Titov, Nils Lindefors

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanic disorderSocial anxietyAnxietyMoodMeta-analysisPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychological interventionSystematic reviewGeneralized anxiety disorderNarrative reviewAnxiety disorderDepression (economics)PsychiatryMEDLINEMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) has existed for 20 years and there are now several controlled trials for a range of problems. In this paper, we focused on recent meta-analytic reviews of the literature and found moderate to large effects reported for panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and major depression. In total, we reviewed 9 recent meta-analytic reviews out of a total of 618 meta-analytic reviews identified using our search terms. In these selected reviews, 166 studies were included, including overlap in reviews on similar conditions. We also covered a recent review on transdiagnostic treatments and 2 reviews on face-to-face v. internet treatment. The growing number of meta-analytic reviews of studies now suggests that ICBT works and can be as effective as face-to-face therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.277
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations355
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207