Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32431633›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2020

Efficacy and Moderators of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis Versus Other Psychological Interventions: An Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

David T Turner, Mirjam Reijnders, Mark van der Gaag, Eirini Karyotaki, Lucia R Valmaggia, Steffen Moritz, Tania Lecomte, Douglas Turkington, Rafael Penadés, Helio Elkis and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. New and Developing Treatments in Schizophrenia.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. International perspective on social cognition in schizophrenia: current stage and the next steps.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    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

16 authors at 11 institutions in 9 countries.

David T TurnerDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mirjam ReijndersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mark van der GaagDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Eirini KaryotakiDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Lucia R ValmaggiaDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Steffen MoritzKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Arbeitsgruppe Klinische Neuropsychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Tania LecomteDépartement de Psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Douglas TurkingtonWolfson Unit, Centre for Aging and Vitality, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.
Rafael PenadésHospital Clínic Barcelona, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS-CIBERSAM, Barcelona, Spain.
Helio ElkisDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, University de São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Corinne CatherMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Frances ShawyerSouthern Synergy, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kieron O'ConnorDepartment Psychiatrie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Zhan-Jiang LiDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Eliza Martha de Paiva BarrettoDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, University de São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversité de Montréal · CABeijing Anding Hospital · CNCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental · ESMassachusetts General Hospital · USMonash University · AUNewcastle Hospitals - Campus for Ageing and Vitality · GBParnassia Groep · NLSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudy-level meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp). Limitations of conventional meta-analysis may be addressed using individual-participant-data (IPD). We aimed to determine a) whether results from IPD were consistent with study-level meta-analyses and b) whether demographic and clinical characteristics moderate treatment outcome.

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo and CENTRAL. Authors of RCTs comparing CBTp with other psychological interventions were contacted to obtain original databases. Hierarchical mixed effects models were used to examine efficacy for psychotic symptoms. Patient characteristics were investigated as moderators of symptoms at post-treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for risk of bias, treatment format and study characteristics.

resultsWe included 14 of 23 eligible RCTs in IPD meta-analyses including 898 patients. Ten RCTs minimised risk of bias. There was no significant difference in efficacy between RCTs providing IPD and those not (

conclusionsIPD suggest that patient characteristics, including severity of psychotic symptoms, do not significantly influence treatment outcome in psychological interventions for psychosis while investing in sufficient dosage of CBTp is important. IPD provide roughly equivalent efficacy estimates to study-level data although significant benefit was not replicated for positive symptoms. We encourage authors to ensure IPD is accessible for future research.

Indexed as

cognitive–behavioural therapyindividual-participant datameta-analysispsychological interventionpsychosis

Identifiers

PMID32431633
PMCPMC7214739
OpenAlexW3021053309

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.