SynthesisThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2026
Effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive-behavioural therapy delivery formats for obsessive-compulsive disorder: network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Feasibility and Acceptability of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Combining Group and Individual Sessions for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Clinical Practice.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive-behavioural therapy delivery formats for obsessive-compulsive disorder: network meta-analysis - CORRIGENDUM.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2026Article
- Innovations to improve outcomes and uptake of psychotherapies for mental disorders: a state-of-the-art review.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile various delivery formats of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are available, comprehensive evidence on their comparative effectiveness and acceptability is lacking.
aimTo examine the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of different CBT delivery formats for OCD.
methodAn existing database of psychological interventions for OCD was utilised, with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT delivery formats with each other/control groups were included. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Comparative standard mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for effectiveness in reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment. Relative risks were calculated for acceptability (conceptualised as any cause discontinuation in the acute treatment phase).
resultsA total of 61 RCTs involving 3710 patients with OCD were included. All CBT treatment formats were significantly more effective than control groups (SMDs: -0.39 to -1.66). No significant differences were found among individual, remote-delivery, guided self-help, time-intensive and family-involved formats. However, individual, remote-delivery and family-involved formats were more effective than group (SMDs, -0.38 to -0.60), and most treatment formats were more effective than unguided self-help (SMDs, -0.58 to -0.80). Regarding acceptability, most CBT formats showed no significant differences among themselves, although they were generally more acceptable (relative risks: 1.11-1.18) than unguided self-help.
conclusionsMost CBT delivery formats serve as potential alternatives to conventional individual CBT. Unguided self-help has lower but still moderate effects in reducing OCD symptom severity, and it holds important potential for assisting a larger number of individuals with OCD who face barriers to accessing treatments.
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.