Trial reportYonsei medical journal2026
Randomized Clinical Trial of Imagery Stabilization and Rescripting Therapy for Psychiatric Outpatients with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Trial report in Yonsei medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the safety and effectiveness of a novel psychotherapy based on imagery techniques, we conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing imagery stabilization and rescripting therapy (ISRT) with non-trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). MATERIALS AND
methodsEight sessions of 60-minute ISRT were conducted for the treatment condition (n=59), while the control group received eight sessions of 60 minutes of CBT (n=27). The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale were administered by clinicians, while self-questionnaires were administered at pretreatment, posttreatment, and the 6-month follow-up.
resultsForty-two participants in the ISRT group and 20 participants in the CBT group completed more than six sessions; thus, dropout rates were not significantly different between the groups (17/59, 28.8% vs. 7/27, 25.9%, respectively). Although no statistical differences were found between conditions, both completer and intention-to-treatment analyses revealed that clinical status, PTSD symptoms, and quality of life favored ISRT after treatment and 6 months later.
conclusionOur findings suggest that ISRT is a safe and effective treatment option for PTSD.
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.