Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37132646›Full record

SynthesisPsychological medicine2023

CBT treatment delivery formats for panic disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Davide Papola, Giovanni Ostuzzi, Federico Tedeschi, Chiara Gastaldon, Marianna Purgato, Cinzia Del Giovane, Alessandro Pompoli, Darin Pauley, Eirini Karyotaki, Marit Sijbrandij and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Innovations to improve outcomes and uptake of psychotherapies for mental disorders: a state-of-the-art review.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Davide PapolaDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, Section of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6482-8593
Giovanni OstuzziDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, Section of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Federico TedeschiDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, Section of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Chiara GastaldonDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, Section of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Marianna PurgatoDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, Section of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Cinzia Del GiovaneInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Alessandro PompoliPsychiatric Rehabilitation Clinic Villa San Pietro, Trento, Italy.
Darin PauleyDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Eirini KaryotakiDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marit SijbrandijDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Toshi A FurukawaDepartments of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Corrado BarbuiDepartment of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Science, Section of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
University of Verona · ITVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLKyoto University · JPOspedale San Pietro Fatebenefratelli · ITUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several in-person and remote delivery formats of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for panic disorder are available, but up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on their comparative efficacy and acceptability is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of all CBT delivery formats to treat panic disorder. To answer our question we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, from inception to 1st January 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO. We found a total of 74 trials with 6699 participants. Evidence suggests that face-to-face group [standardised mean differences (s.m.d.) -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.07; CINeMA = moderate], face-to-face individual (s.m.d. -0.43, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.15; CINeMA = Moderate), and guided self-help (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.07; CINeMA = low), are superior to treatment as usual in terms of efficacy, whilst unguided self-help is not (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.16; CINeMA = low). In terms of acceptability (i.e. all-cause discontinuation from the trial) CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly from each other. Our findings are clear in that there are no efficacy differences between CBT delivered as guided self-help, or in the face-to-face individual or group format in the treatment of panic disorder. No CBT delivery format provided high confidence in the evidence at the CINeMA evaluation.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyPanic DisorderHealth BehaviorHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWaiting ListsCBTcognitive-behavioural therapynetwork meta-analysispanic disordersystematic reviewtreatment delivery formats

Identifiers

PMID37132646
PMCPMC9975966
OpenAlexW4311956393

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.