Protocol for a systematic review of Accelerated Resolution Therapy (ART®) for the treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionPeople who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often experience intrusion symptoms, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, alterations in arousal and reactivity and avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event. Accordingly, Accelerated Resolution Therapy (ART®) aims to reduce these symptoms. ART® is a brief type of therapy that uses techniques such as rapid eye movement, in vivo exposure, and image rescripting to recondition stressful memories (Kip et al., 2012). Currently only modest support for ART® in the treatment of PTSD has been established using the Chambless and Hollon (1998) criteria for Empirically Supported Treatments (EST). ART® has yet to be re-evaluated using the criteria for determining an EST that were proposed by Tolin et al. (2015). Furthermore, there have been no systematic reviews conducted on the use of ART® for the treatment of PTSD in adults. We aim to address this gap by providing a systematic review of the evidence for ART® in the treatment of PTSD in adults. In addition, an assessment of risk of bias on the outcomes of ART® on PTSD will be conducted. Methods and analysisThe Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins et al., 2022) will be used to inform the methods of this review. This protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P; Moher et al., 2015). Search terms were developed in collaboration with a medical librarian. Five electronic peer-reviewed databases, three registers, and three organization websites will be searched. Eligible articles will be independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two reviewers (EM and DS). A quantitative synthesis of findings will be reported where three or more papers with a low risk of bias report on an outcome of interest. Where quantitative synthesis is not possible a narrative synthesis will be conducted following the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines (Campbell et al., 2020). A ‘summary of findings’ table will be generated. Risk ratios and 95% CI (dichotomous outcomes) and/or effect size according to the Cohen (1992) formula (continuous outcomes) will be calculated for the primary outcome of each study (i.e., change in symptoms of PTSD or change in severity of PTSD diagnosis).Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are foreseen. Findings will be disseminated via journal publication and conference publication(s).
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 | 0.046 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.011 |
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".