SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Detached mindfulness as a stand-alone intervention: a Systematic Review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Breaking the vicious cycle: a bibliometric and visual analysis of the bidirectional relationship between pruritus and negative emotions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Detached Mindfulness (DM) is a central, transdiagnostic technique within Metacognitive Therapy (MCT). It involves increasing meta-awareness of intrusions while decentring from and disengaging with them, and is used to reduce the Cognitive Attentional Syndrome and dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs-key components of the metacognitive model of psychological disorders. Although DM is typically delivered within a full MCT protocol, recent research has begun to evaluate DM as a stand-alone intervention. The current study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse its effects. Methods: Studies were included in the systematic review if they examined DM delivered as a stand-alone intervention in clinical or non-clinical samples. Searches were carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in May 2025. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using an adapted quality appraisal checklist. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for clinical trials, and narrative synthesis for experimental studies. Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria, representing twelve independent samples exposed to DM ( Conclusions: These findings provide converging, but still limited, evidence that DM as a stand-alone intervention is associated with improvements in psychological symptoms and related processes. The results have implications for future component analyses of MCT and for the development of brief, transdiagnostic metacognitive interventions. However, there are significant limitations to the current research base including the small number of studies, methodological shortcomings, and lack of long-term follow-up; these are discussed as well as suggestions for future studies.
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.