Short-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Functional Somatic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Functionalsomatic disorders (FSD) are common and costly, thereby driving the need for the development of effective brief treatment options. Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) is one candidate treatment method. OBJECTIVE: To review and meta-analyze, where possible, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of STPP for FSD. METHODS: Following a systematic search of the literature, we performed a meta-analysis of available RCT groups to determine the effects of STPP on a range of outcomes after treatment, and medium- and long-term follow-ups. RESULTS: In meta-analyses of 17 RCTs, STPP significantly outperformed minimal treatment, treatment as usual, or waiting list controls on somatic symptom measures at all time frames, with small to large magnitude effect sizes. Descriptive reviews of 5 RCTs suggest that STPP performed at least as well as other bona fide psychological therapies. Limitations of this meta-analysis include small samples of studies and possible publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: STPP is a valid treatment option for diverse FSD conditions resulting in somatic symptom reductions that persist over time. STPP should be included in FSD treatment guidelines.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.060 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it