Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28898411›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical psychology2018

50 years of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavioral therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daniel David, Carmen Cotet, Silviu Matu, Cristina Mogoase, Simona Stefan

Abstract readHistorical ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. For whom and what outcomes does cognitive-behavioral-therapy work among cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel DavidBabeş-Bolyai University, Departament of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy and International Institute for Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health.
Carmen CotetBabeş-Bolyai University, Departament of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy and International Institute for Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health.
Silviu MatuBabeş-Bolyai University, Departament of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy and International Institute for Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health.
Cristina MogoaseBabeş-Bolyai University, Departament of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy and International Institute for Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health.
Simona StefanBabeş-Bolyai University, Departament of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy and International Institute for Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), introduced by Albert Ellis in the late 1950s, is one of the main pillars of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Existing reviews on REBT are overdue by 10 years or more. We aimed to summarize the effectiveness and efficacy of REBT since its beginnings and investigate the alleged mechanisms of change.

methodSystematic search identified 84 articles, out of which 68 provided data for between-group analyses and 39 for within-group analyses.

resultsWe found a medium effect size of REBT compared to other interventions on outcomes (d = 0.58) and on irrational beliefs (d = 0.70), at posttest. For the within-group analyses, we obtained medium effects for both outcomes (d = 0.56) and irrational beliefs (d = 0.61). Several significant moderators emerged.

conclusionREBT is a sound psychological intervention. Directions for future studies are outlined, stemming from the limitations of existing ones.

Indexed as

EmotionsCognitive Behavioral TherapyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Careefficacyirrational beliefsmeta-analysisrational beliefsREBT

Identifiers

PMID28898411
PMCPMC5836900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.