David T Turner1, Simone Burger1, Filip Smit1,2,3, Lucia R Valmaggia4, Mark van der Gaag1,5. 1. Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Psychology, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK. 5. Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Following 2 decades of research on cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp), it is relevant to consider at which point the evidence base is considered sufficient. We completed a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the sufficiency and stability of the evidence base for hallucinations and delusions. METHOD: We updated the systematic search from our previous meta-analytic review from August 2013 until December 2019. We identified 20 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) resulting in inclusion of 35 RCTs comparing CBTp with treatment-as-usual (TAU) or active controls (AC). We analyzed data from participants with psychosis (N = 2407) over 75 conventional meta-analytic comparisons. We completed cumulative meta-analyses (including fail-safe ratios) for key comparisons. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and risk of bias were examined. RESULTS: Cumulative meta-analyses demonstrated sufficiency and stability of evidence for hallucinations and delusions. The fail-safe ratio demonstrated that the evidence base was sufficient in 2016 for hallucinations and 2015 for delusions. In conventional meta-analyses, CBTp was superior for hallucinations (g = 0.34, P < .01) and delusions (g = 0.37, P < .01) when compared with any control. Compared with TAU, CBTp demonstrated superiority for hallucinations (g = 0.34, P < .01) and delusions (g = 0.37, P < .01). Compared with AC, CBT was superior for hallucinations (g = 0.34, P < .01), but not for delusions although this comparison was underpowered. Sensitivity analyses for case formulation, primary outcome focus, and risk of bias demonstrated increases in effect magnitude for hallucinations. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the effect of CBTp on hallucinations and delusions demonstrates sufficiency and stability across comparisons, suggesting limited value of new trials evaluating generic CBTp.
OBJECTIVE: Following 2 decades of research on cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp), it is relevant to consider at which point the evidence base is considered sufficient. We completed a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the sufficiency and stability of the evidence base for hallucinations and delusions. METHOD: We updated the systematic search from our previous meta-analytic review from August 2013 until December 2019. We identified 20 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) resulting in inclusion of 35 RCTs comparing CBTp with treatment-as-usual (TAU) or active controls (AC). We analyzed data from participants with psychosis (N = 2407) over 75 conventional meta-analytic comparisons. We completed cumulative meta-analyses (including fail-safe ratios) for key comparisons. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and risk of bias were examined. RESULTS: Cumulative meta-analyses demonstrated sufficiency and stability of evidence for hallucinations and delusions. The fail-safe ratio demonstrated that the evidence base was sufficient in 2016 for hallucinations and 2015 for delusions. In conventional meta-analyses, CBTp was superior for hallucinations (g = 0.34, P < .01) and delusions (g = 0.37, P < .01) when compared with any control. Compared with TAU, CBTp demonstrated superiority for hallucinations (g = 0.34, P < .01) and delusions (g = 0.37, P < .01). Compared with AC, CBT was superior for hallucinations (g = 0.34, P < .01), but not for delusions although this comparison was underpowered. Sensitivity analyses for case formulation, primary outcome focus, and risk of bias demonstrated increases in effect magnitude for hallucinations. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the effect of CBTp on hallucinations and delusions demonstrates sufficiency and stability across comparisons, suggesting limited value of new trials evaluating generic CBTp.
Authors: Robert Dudley; Guy Dodgson; Stephanie Common; Lucy O'Grady; Florence Watson; Christopher Gibbs; Bronia Arnott; Charles Fernyhough; Ben Alderson-Day; Emmanuel Ogundimu; Ehsan Kharatikoopaei; Victoria Patton; Charlotte Aynsworth Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: David T Turner; Mirjam Reijnders; Mark van der Gaag; Eirini Karyotaki; Lucia R Valmaggia; Steffen Moritz; Tania Lecomte; Douglas Turkington; Rafael Penadés; Helio Elkis; Corinne Cather; Frances Shawyer; Kieron O'Connor; Zhan-Jiang Li; Eliza Martha de Paiva Barretto; Pim Cuijpers Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: U N Jeppesen; A S Due; L Mariegaard; A Pinkham; M Vos; W Veling; M Nordentoft; L B Glenthøj Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Thomas Ward; Amy Hardy; Rebecca Holm; Nicola Collett; Mar Rus-Calafell; Catarina Sacadura; Alison McGourty; Claire Vella; Anna East; Michaela Rea; Helen Harding; Richard Emsley; Kathryn Greenwood; Daniel Freeman; David Fowler; Elizabeth Kuipers; Paul Bebbington; Philippa Garety Journal: Psychol Psychother Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Guy Dodgson; Charlotte Aynsworth; Kaja J Mitrenga; Chistopher Gibbs; Victoria Patton; Charles Fernyhough; Robert Dudley; Carina Ewels; Louise Leach; Ben Alderson-Day; Stephanie Common Journal: Psychol Psychother Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 3.966