How to prove that your therapy is effective, even when it is not: a guideline

Pim J. Cuijpers · Ioana A. Cristea

122 citations0/0 files storedEpidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences

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

Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

AIMS: Suppose you are the developer of a new therapy for a mental health problem or you have several years of experience working with such a therapy, and you would like to prove that it is effective. Randomised trials have become the gold standard to prove that interventions are effective, and they are used by treatment guidelines and policy makers to decide whether or not to adopt, implement or fund a therapy. METHODS: You would want to do such a randomised trial to get your therapy disseminated, but in reality your clinical experience already showed you that the therapy works. How could you do a trial in order to optimise the chance of finding a positive effect? RESULTS: Methods that can help include a strong allegiance towards the therapy, anything that increases expectations and hope in participants, making use of the weak spots of randomised trials (risk of bias), small sample sizes and waiting list control groups (but not comparisons with existing interventions). And if all that fails one can always not publish the outcomes and wait for positive trials. CONCLUSIONS: Several methods are available to help you show that your therapy is effective, even when it is not.

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 — 122 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2002The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models Methods and Findings 1998Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials

Cited by

2021Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 2020Promotion, prevention and treatment interventions for mental health in low- and middle-income countries through a task-shifting approach 2019Evaluating the evidential value of empirically supported psychological treatments (ESTs): A meta-scientific review.2019Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies

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.