SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2026
Comparative Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Delivery Formats for Individuals with Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have shown that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is beneficial for enhancing blood sugar monitoring and mental health in diabetic patients, but no studies have compared all CBT formats to determine which one is more effective. This review compared different delivery formats for CBT for diabetes.
methodsWe searched nine databases for randomized clinical trials comparing one CBT delivery format against another format or control conditions for patients with diabetes. The primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction, severity of depression and anxiety. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were used to synthesize the data.
results29 trials with 5,208 participants were included. Network meta-analyses showed at post-intervention, with very low to moderate evidence, digital assisted was probably the most effective in decreasing depression compared with unguided and guided self-help, individual, group, treatment as usual (TAU), education, waitlist plus TAU and waitlist. At follow-up, moderate evidence indicated digital assisted significantly reduced depression and anxiety compared to group, education, TAU, and waitlist, and outperformed individual and waitlist plus TAU for depression. Evidence from very low to low indicated other CBT formats also showed improvement in relevant outcomes. MD range for glycated hemoglobin (follow-up): -1.24 to -0.45%; MD range for depression (post-intervention): -35.08 to -8.21; MD range for depression (follow-up): -54.00 to 5.89; SMD range for anxiety: -17.51 to -0.74; SMD range for quality of life: 2.12 to 3.39. DISCUSSION: Digital-assisted CBT appears most effective for reducing depression and anxiety, while group and guided self-help formats showed benefits for HbA1c and distress. Limitations include potential publication bias on group CBT format for HbA1c and distress, lack of anxiety outcomes and digital assisted format studies. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42024515804).
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.