ArticleInternet interventions2025
Study protocol for a triple-blind randomised controlled trial evaluating a machine learning-based predictive clinical decision support tool for internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) for depression and anxiety.
Article in Internet interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Monoamines to Systems Psychiatry: Rewiring Depression Science and Care (1960s-2025).Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Natural language processing models for predicting treatment outcomes in internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- The promise and challenges of computer mouse trajectories in DMHIs - A feasibility study on pre-treatment dropout predictions.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- Predicting Therapy Outcomes in Patients With Stress-Related Disorders: Protocol for a Predictive Modeling Study.JMIR research protocols · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Therapist-supported internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) has strong scientific support, but all patients are not helped, and further improvements are needed. Personalized medicine could enhance ICBT. One promising approach uses a Machine learning (ML) based predictive decision support tool (DST) to help therapists identify patients at risk of treatment failure and adjust their treatments accordingly. ICBT is a suitable clinical context for developing and testing such predictive DST's, since its delivery is quite flexible and can quickly be adapted for probable non-responders, for example by increasing the level and nature of therapist support, to avoid treatment failures and improve overall outcomes. This type of strategy has never been tested in a triple-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT) and has rarely been studied in ICBT.The aim of this protocol is to expand on previous registered protocols with more detailed descriptions of methods and analyses before analyses is being conducted. Methods and analysis: A triple blind RCT comparing ICBT with a DST (DST condition), to ICBT as usual (TAU condition). The primary objective is to evaluate if the DST condition is superior to the TAU condition in decreasing diagnose-specific symptoms among patients identified to be at risk of failure. Secondary objectives are to evaluate if the DST improves functioning, interaction, adherence, patient satisfaction, and therapist time efficiency and decreases the number of failed treatments. Additionally, we will investigate the therapists' experience of using the DST.Patients and therapists have been recruited nationally. They were randomised and given a sham rationale for the trial to ensure allocation blindness. The total number of patients included was 401, and assessments were administered pre-treatment, weekly during treatment, at post-treatment and at 12-month follow-up. Primary outcome is one of the three diagnosis-specific symptom rating scales for respective treatment and primary analysis is difference in change from pre- to post-treatment for at-risk patients on these scales. Human ethics and consent to participate: Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants. Both therapists and patients are participants in this trial. For patients, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained when they registered interest for the study via the study's secure web platform and carried out initial screening before the diagnostic and fit for treatment assessment, they first received the research subject information and were asked for consent by digitally signing that they had read and understood the information. For therapists who were part of the study, consent was requested after they had registered their interest. Therapists then received an email with a link to the study's secure web platform with the research person's information and were asked for consent by digitally signing that they had read and understood the information. All documents are stored in secure, locked filing cabinets on the clinic's premises or on a secure digital consent database. Approval committee: Approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (SERA), record number 2020-05772.
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.