ArticlePsychotherapy and psychosomatics2025
Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance- and Mindfulness-Based Treatments in Adults with Bodily Distress: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 2025. 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.
- Feasibility of Videoconference-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Somatic Symptom Disorder: Single-Arm Pilot Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance- and Mindfulness-Based Treatments in Adults with Bodily Distress: A Network Meta-Analysis.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany physical complaints cause long-term bodily distress. Meta-analyses show that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and acceptance- and mindfulness-based treatments (AMBT) reduce somatic symptom severity, but evidence on differential efficacy is limited. This study evaluates the efficacy of CBT and AMBT for bodily distress (e.g., somatoform disorders, functional somatic syndromes, and related disorders).
methodsA network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on adults with bodily distress compared CBT and AMBT either directly or with nonspecific control groups. Cohen's d based on between-group effect sizes was aggregated using a random effects model. Primary outcome was somatic symptom severity; secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, and perceived health status.
resultsBased on 74 studies (N = 8,277), CBT (d = -0.50, 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.29; between-group effect sizes vs. wait-list [WL]) and AMBT (d = -0.55, 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.23; between-group effect sizes vs. WL) were equally effective in reducing somatic symptoms at posttreatment. AMBT were more effective than CBT in reducing depression (d = -0.31, 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.04; between-group effect sizes) and anxiety (d = -0.42, 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.11; between-group effect sizes) posttreatment. At long-term follow-up, effects were partly maintained; AMBT remained more effective than CBT for anxiety, with no differential effects for other outcomes.
conclusionsBoth treatments showed benefits compared to various controls. Evidence suggests potential differential treatment effects, indicating some patient groups may benefit more from AMBT. Clinicians should view CBT as foundational but remain open to variations, especially for comorbid pathology.
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.