Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37159350›Full record

ArticleWorld psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)2023

Therapist-supported Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy yields similar effects as face-to-face therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Erik Hedman-Lagerlöf, Per Carlbring, Frank Svärdman, Heleen Riper, Pim Cuijpers, Gerhard Andersson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
43.8field-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

169 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 223 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. [Internet-based self-help for loneliness-a systematic review].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

109 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Erik Hedman-LagerlöfDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per CarlbringDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Frank SvärdmanDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Heleen RiperDepartment of Clinical Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerhard AnderssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLLinköping University · SEStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Providing therapist-guided cognitive behaviour therapy via the Internet (ICBT) has advantages, but a central research question is to what extent similar clinical effects can be obtained as with gold-standard face-to-face cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). In a previous meta-analysis published in this journal, which was updated in 2018, we found evidence that the pooled effects for the two formats were equivalent in the treatment of psychiatric and somatic disorders, but the number of published randomized trials was relatively low (n=20). As this is a field that moves rapidly, the aim of the current study was to conduct an update of our systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effects of ICBT vs. face-to-face CBT for psychiatric and somatic disorders in adults. We searched the PubMed database for relevant studies published from 2016 to 2022. The main inclusion criteria were that studies had to compare ICBT to face-to-face CBT using a randomized controlled design and targeting adult populations. Quality assessment was made using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria (Version 1), and the main outcome estimate was the pooled standardized effect size (Hedges' g) using a random effects model. We screened 5,601 records and included 11 new randomized trials, adding them to the 20 previously identified ones (total n=31). Sixteen different clinical conditions were targeted in the included studies. Half of the trials were in the fields of depression/depressive symptoms or some form of anxiety disorder. The pooled effect size across all disorders was g=0.02 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.14) and the quality of the included studies was acceptable. This meta-analysis further supports the notion that therapist-supported ICBT yields similar effects as face-to-face CBT.

Indexed as

anxiety disordersCognitive behaviour therapydepressionface-to-face therapyInternet-based cognitive-behaviour therapymeta-analysisonline psychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37159350
PMCPMC10168168
OpenAlexW4376133551

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.