ArticleBMJ open2025
Cost-effectiveness of massed versus spaced trauma-focused treatment as first-line treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults with multiple trauma exposure: protocol for a single-blind non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06700590 (), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
(Cost)-Effectiveness of Intensive Trauma-Focused Treatment Versus Spaced Trauma-Focused Treatment As First Line Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Adults with Multiple Trauma Exposure: Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious disorder that burdens individuals and society. The current standard of first-line treatment for PTSD is spaced trauma-focused treatment (S-TFT), involving weekly sessions. While effective, S-TFT may take relatively long to complete, especially in patients exposed to multiple potentially traumatic events (PTEs). Massed trauma-focused treatment (M-TFT), involving increased session frequency, potentially results in faster symptom reduction and restoration of quality of life, as well as in a reduction of societal costs. However, M-TFT is not recommended as first-line treatment. This paper describes the research protocol of a single-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed at investigating: (1) the clinical and cost-effectiveness of M-TFT versus S-TFT in employed, multiply traumatised patients who seek first-line treatment for PTSD and (2) predictive and moderating factors related to treatment response. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 186 participants are recruited from five centres and will be included if they are ≥18 years old, meet criteria for a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition PTSD diagnosis based on ≥two PTEs, seek treatment for the first time and are employed. Patients with specified comorbid disorders and insufficient Dutch language proficiency are excluded. Participants are randomised to 800 min of either M-TFT or S-TFT. M-TFT consists of two once-weekly preparatory sessions, 10 twice-daily sessions of prolonged exposure, eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy for 2 weeks and two once-weekly closing sessions. S-TFT consists of weekly sessions of one of five evidence-based treatment interventions. Outcomes are assessed at baseline and at 7 weeks, 17 weeks, 6 months and 9 months after baseline. Primary outcomes are clinical effectiveness in terms of PTSD symptom severity and cost-effectiveness based on quality of life measures and societal costs. Data will be analysed with linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (NL86057.018.24). Participants will provide informed consent before enrolment in the trial. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be released to clinicians, patient groups and the general community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol is registered at Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON; trial register number 56960) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06700590).
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.