Background: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice. Aims: To examine the efficiency of CBM for clinically relevant outcomes, along with study quality, publication bias and potential moderators. Method: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM interventions that reported clinically relevant outcomes assessed with standardised instruments. Results: We identified 49 trials and grouped outcomes into anxiety and depression. Effect sizes were small considering all the samples, and mostly non-significant for patient samples. Effect sizes became non-significant when outliers were excluded and after adjustment for publication bias. The quality of the RCTs was suboptimal. Conclusions: CBM may have small effects on mental health problems, but it is also very well possible that there are no significant clinically relevant effects. Research in this field is hampered by small and low-quality trials, and by risk of publication bias. Many positive outcomes are driven by extreme outliers.

Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis

Cristea I. A.
;
2015-01-01

Abstract

Background: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice. Aims: To examine the efficiency of CBM for clinically relevant outcomes, along with study quality, publication bias and potential moderators. Method: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM interventions that reported clinically relevant outcomes assessed with standardised instruments. Results: We identified 49 trials and grouped outcomes into anxiety and depression. Effect sizes were small considering all the samples, and mostly non-significant for patient samples. Effect sizes became non-significant when outliers were excluded and after adjustment for publication bias. The quality of the RCTs was suboptimal. Conclusions: CBM may have small effects on mental health problems, but it is also very well possible that there are no significant clinically relevant effects. Research in this field is hampered by small and low-quality trials, and by risk of publication bias. Many positive outcomes are driven by extreme outliers.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cristea, Kok & Cuijpers (2015).pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 383.07 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
383.07 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1295734
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 382
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 361
social impact