ArticleJCPP advances2023
Do single-case experimental designs lead to randomised controlled trials of cognitive behavioural therapy interventions for adolescent anxiety and related disorders recommended in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines? A systematic review.
Article in JCPP advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial Perspective: How can we develop effective and timely interventions for young people with chronic loneliness?Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is effective for 60% of adolescents with anxiety disorders, only 36% are in remission post-intervention. This indicates that more effective treatments are needed which should be reflected in the NICE guidelines. We hypothesised that Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) may provide a framework for accelerating the development of novel interventions. The primary purpose of this review was to investigate whether SCEDs are currently followed by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT intervention for adolescent anxiety disorders named in the NICE guidelines. The secondary objective was to investigate whether using SCEDs prior to RCTs could be a helpful approach. Method: For the primary search of SCEDs five databases were used (PsycINFO, PubMed, PsycArticles, Web of Science and ProQuest). Nineteen articles met eligibility criteria including a total of 107 participants. For the secondary search of RCTs named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders 53 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Results: The 19 SCED studies included in the review were conducted with participants with a diverse range of anxiety disorders and across a range of CBT formats. Two of the SCEDs were followed by RCTs, but neither of these were named in the NICE guidelines for anxiety disorders. All of the SCEDs identified were rated as low quality with none meeting the criteria for the highest or second highest quality rating. From the secondary searches, none of the RCTs named in the NICE guide were preceded by SCEDs. Conclusions: It was concluded that currently SCEDs were not followed by RCTs of CBT interventions named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders. However, it was suggested that SCEDs may provide an important framework for the development of more effective interventions for adolescents with anxiety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.