SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is a prevalent and disabling mental health condition in adults, associated with marked functional impairment, reduced quality of life, and substantial personal and societal burden. Previous meta-analyses have mainly evaluated single non-pharmacological interventions for SAD, but few evidence syntheses have compared the relative effectiveness of multiple non-pharmacological approaches within a unified analytic framework. As a result, the comparative efficacy of these interventions remains unclear. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to 3 November 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for adults with SAD or clinically relevant social anxiety symptoms. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted, and results were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 104 RCTs involving 10,708 participants were included. Compared with control conditions, most non-pharmacological interventions were associated with significant reductions in social anxiety severity. Based on SUCRA values, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; 86.4%; SMD = -0.80, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.68), combination therapy (CT; 71.7%; SMD = -0.74, 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.47), and psychotherapy (PT; 70.7%; SMD = -0.73, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.54) ranked among the more effective interventions. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that CBT remained among the higher-ranked interventions across the country's development level, intervention duration, baseline severity, and delivery format. However, the certainty of evidence was predominantly low to moderate, and subgroup findings should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusion: This network meta-analysis integrates direct and indirect evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for adult social anxiety. CBT, CT, and PT appear to be among the more effective approaches, although confidence in comparative estimates remains limited. These findings may inform shared decision-making and implementation planning, underscoring the need for well-designed head-to-head trials and more consistent reporting to strengthen comparative conclusions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD420251179037).
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.