Reviewhybrid2022

Cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in routine clinical care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pia Enebrink · Anna Finnes · Ata Ghaderi · Audun Havnen · Gerd Kvale · Sigrid Salomonsson +1 more

75 citations0/0 files storedBehaviour Research and Therapy

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

Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Abstract

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has strong research support for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, less is known about how CBT performs when delivered in routine clinical care. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of CBT for OCD in adults treated in routine clinical care. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies published until July 2021. The effectiveness of CBT, methodological quality, and moderators of treatment outcome were examined, and benchmarked by meta-analytically comparing with efficacy studies for OCD. Twenty-nine studies (8 randomized controlled trials) were included, comprising 1669 participants. Very large within-group effect sizes (ES) were obtained for OCD-severity at post-treatment (2.12), and follow-up (2.30), on average 15 months post-treatment. Remission rates were 59.2% post-treatment and 57.0% at follow-up. Attrition rate was 15.2%. Risk of bias was considerable in the majority of studies. The benchmarking analysis showed that effectiveness studies had almost exactly the same ES as efficacy studies at post-treatment and somewhat higher at follow-up. Furthermore, effectiveness studies had significantly higher remission rates than efficacy studies, both at post- and follow-up assessment. CBT for OCD is an effective treatment when delivered in routine clinical care, with ES comparable to those found in efficacy studies. However, the evidence needs to be interpreted with caution because of the risk of bias in a high proportion of studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42021228828.

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 — 75 citations exist upstream.

References

2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2005Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 2013Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs 1994Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in 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.