Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768807›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2022

Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders - a critical evaluation.

Borwin Bandelow, Dirk Wedekind

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The German Guidelines for the treatment of anxiety disorders: first revision.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Borwin BandelowDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre, Göttingen (UMG), D-37075, Göttingen, Germany. bbandel@gwdg.de.
Dirk WedekindDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre, Göttingen (UMG), D-37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, internet-delivered psychotherapeutic interventions (IPI) move increasingly into the focus of attention.

methodWe reviewed 39 randomized controlled studies of IPIs with 97 study arms (n = 4122 patients) for anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder) and performed a meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted with cognitive behavioural approaches (iCBT). Results were compared with a previous meta-analysis examining medications and face-to-face (F2F) psychotherapy.

resultsIn direct comparisons, IPIs were as effective as F2F-CBT and superior to waitlist controls. Programs with more intensive therapist contact yielded higher effect sizes (ES). We compared the obtained ES with a previous comprehensive meta-analysis of 234 studies. In this comparison, iCBT was less effective than individual F2F-CBT and medications, not different from pill placebos, and more effective than psychological placebo and waitlist (p > .0001 for all comparisons). ES of IPIs may be overestimated. Treatments were only compared to waitlist, which is not a sufficient control condition. 97% of the studies were not blinded with regard to the main outcome measure. 32% of the participants received antianxiety drugs during the trials. In 89%, participants were recruited by advertisements rather than from clinical settings, and 63% of the participants had an academic background (students or university employees) which might affect the generalizability of the findings. Remote diagnoses were often made by students without completed training in psychotherapy. In only 15% of the studies, diagnoses were made in personal contact with a psychiatrist or psychologist. In 44% of the studies, the 'therapists' maintaining remote contact with the participants were mostly students without completed psychotherapy education.

conclusionsIPIs may be a useful tool when face-to-face psychotherapy is not easily available, or as an add-on to standard psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacological treatments but should perhaps not be used as monotherapy. We have suggested standards for future research and the practical use of IPIs.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAgoraphobiaAnxiety DisordersHumansInternetRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnxiety disordersGeneralised anxiety disorderInternet psychotherapyMeta-analysisPanic disorderSocial anxiety disorder

Identifiers

PMID35768807
PMCPMC9241282
OpenAlexW4283689551

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.