Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42856155›Full record

SynthesisWellcome open research2026

Cognitive bias modification for social anxiety: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Jaycee Kennett, Virginia Chiocchia, Claire Friedrich, Simon E Blackwell, Per Carlbring, Toshi Furukawa, Spyridon Siafis, Catherine Money, Thomy Tonia, Simonne Wright and 13 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Wellcome open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Jaycee KennettDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7312-8676
Virginia ChiocchiaInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6196-3308
Claire FriedrichDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5841-4324
Simon E BlackwellDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Institute of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3313-7084
Per CarlbringDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2172-8813
Toshi FurukawaDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behaviour, Kyoto University School of Public Health Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2159-3776
Spyridon SiafisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8264-2039
Catherine MoneyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Thomy ToniaInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Simonne WrightDepartment of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3295-256X
Kelvin OpiepieGlobal Lived Experience Advisory Board, GALENOS, Ogrun State, Nigeria.
Richardson MojicaGlobal Lived Experience Advisory Board, GALENOS, Bacoor, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4410-9758
Olufisayo ElugbadeoSouth African Medical Council Unit on the Genomics of Brain Disorders, Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3221-1323
Paulina SchenkCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5239-1977
Micaela SantilliCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2740-8231
Susan MichieCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-6378
Janna HastingsInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3469-4923
Hossein DehdariradEPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK.
Claire StansfieldEPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK.
James ThomasEPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4805-4190
Jennifer PottsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Georgia SalantiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Andrea CiprianiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) is a potentially effective intervention for social anxiety disorder (SAD). However, the relative efficacy of CBM subtypes remains uncertain. Methods: We co-produced a living systematic review of controlled studies evaluating stand alone CBM in participants with SAD and in non-clinical participants undergoing a social stressor, seeking to triangulate these. Databases were searched until October 2025 and two independent reviewers screened, extracted and critically appraised studies. The primary outcome was reduction in SAD symptoms, but we collected data on other mental health outcomes. Random-effect network meta-analysis was conducted. Credibility was assessed using the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis framework. Results: CBM for attention (CBM-A) demonstrated the largest reduction in SAD symptoms relative to control CBM-A although this estimate was imprecise (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) = -0.18, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.05, 95% PI: -1.02 to 1.04). Opposite CBM-A, training attention towards negative stimuli, performed similarly (SMD -0.17, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.31, 95% PI: -0.97 to 1.21). CBM for interpretation (CBM-I) reduced SAD symptoms (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.84 to -0.09, 95% PI: -0.53 to 1.46) and cognitive bias versus its task-matched control condition without active bias training. The SAD network showed high inconsistency and 95% of studies were at moderate or high risk of bias. Three comparisons involving CBM-A were rated as moderate confidence, all others were low or very low. Sparse data precluded NMA of outcomes in non-SAD participants. Conclusion: Inconsistency and imprecision in the network preclude firm conclusions regarding CBM efficacy for SAD. CBM-A showed a small effect but its similarity to opposite CBM-A suggests benefits may not depend on training direction. Future studies should explore the mechanism of CBM and reporting on potential side-effects. We will update this living systematic review as part of the GALENOS project.

Indexed as

attentional biasCBMCognitive bias modificationinterpretation biassocial anxiety

Identifiers

PMID42856155
PMCPMC13646545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.