Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30687986›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2019

Efficacy of an unguided internet-based self-help intervention for social anxiety disorder in university students: A randomized controlled trial.

Fanny Kählke, Thomas Berger, Ava Schulz, Harald Baumeister, Matthias Berking, Randy P Auerbach, Ronny Bruffaerts, Pim Cuijpers, Ronald C Kessler, David Daniel Ebert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness, Acceptance, and Negative Effects ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

10 authors.

Fanny KählkeDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8189-301X
Thomas BergerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2432-7791
Ava SchulzDepartment of Experimental Psychopathology and Psychotherapy, University of Zürich, Psychiatric University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2295-9418
Harald BaumeisterDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2040-661X
Matthias BerkingDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5903-4748
Randy P AuerbachDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York City, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2319-4744
Ronny BruffaertsResearch Group Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0330-3694
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5497-2743
Ronald C KesslerDepartment for Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4831-2305
David Daniel EbertDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6820-0146

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesInternet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) offer the opportunity to deliver mental health treatments on a large scale. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of an unguided IMI (StudiCare SAD) for university students with social anxiety disorder (SAD).

methodsUniversity students (N = 200) diagnosed with SAD were randomly assigned to an IMI or a waitlist control group (WLC) with full access to treatment as usual. StudiCare SAD consists of nine sessions. The primary outcome was SAD symptoms at posttreatment (10 weeks), assessed via the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS). Secondary outcomes included depression, quality of life, fear of positive evaluation, general psychopathology, and interpersonal problems.

resultsResults indicated moderate to large effect sizes in favor of StudiCare SAD compared with WLC for SAD at posttest for the primary outcomes (SPS: d = 0.76; SIAS: d = 0.55, p < 0.001). Effects on all secondary outcomes were significant and in favor of the intervention group.

conclusionStudiCare SAD has proven effective in reducing SAD symptoms in university students. Providing IMIs may be a promising way to reach university students with SAD at an early stage with an effective treatment.

Indexed as

Therapy, Computer-AssistedAdultFemaleHumansMalePhobia, SocialSelf CareStudentsTreatment Outcomeinternet-based treatmentsocial anxiety disorderunguided self-helpuniversity students

Identifiers

PMID30687986
PMCPMC6877166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.