Reviewbronze2013

The Current State of the Empirical Evidence for Psychoanalysis

Saskia C. M. de Maat · Frans de Jonghe · Ruth de Kraker · Falk Leichsenring · Allan Anthony Abbass · Patrick Luyten +3 more

95 citations0/0 files storedHarvard Review of Psychiatry

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications Psychological Treatments and Disorders

Abstract

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After participating in this educational activity, the reader should be better able to evaluate the empirical evidence for pre/post changes in psychoanalysis patients with complex mental disorders, and assess the limitations of the meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of psychoanalysis is still a controversial issue, despite increasing research efforts. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the empirical evidence for psychoanalysis by means of a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of the research data. METHOD: A systematic literature search was undertaken to find studies regarding the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, published between 1970 and 2011. A meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (total n = 603) were included in the meta-analysis. All but one were pre/post cohort studies. At treatment termination, the mean pre/post effect size across all outcome measures was 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.50; p < .01). The mean pre/post effect size for symptom improvement was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.20-1.84; p < .01), and for improvement in personality characteristics 1.08 (95% CI, 0.89-1.26; p < .01). At follow-up the mean pre/follow-up effect size was 1.46 across all outcome measures (95% CI, 1.08-1.83; p < .01), 1.65 for symptom change (95% CI, 1.24-2.06; p < .01), and 1.31 for personality change (95% CI, 1.00-1.62; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of mainly pre/post studies, presenting mostly completers analyses, provide empirical evidence for pre/post changes in psychoanalysis patients with complex mental disorders, but the lack of comparisons with control treatments is a serious limitation in interpreting the results. Further controlled studies are urgently needed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses 1961An Inventory for Measuring Depression 1970Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 1959THE ASSESSMENT OF ANXIETY STATES BY RATING 1988Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis 1976ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology

Cited by

2018Outcome of Psychoanalytic and Cognitive-Behavioural Long-Term Therapy with Chronically Depressed Patients: A Controlled Trial with Preferential and Randomized Allocation 2018Conceptual foundations and validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale 2017Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.