Cognitive-behavioral therapy versus other therapies: redux

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Psychotherapy Research
• Clinical Psychology

Background:

• A persistent belief exists that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is more effective than other therapeutic approaches.
• Previous meta-analyses have suggested small to medium effect sizes for CBT, but the evidence for its superiority is debated.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reanalyze existing clinical trials comparing CBT to other therapies for depression and anxiety.
• To conduct a rigorous meta-analysis on the relative efficacy of CBT versus bona fide non-CBT treatments for adult anxiety disorders.

Main Methods:

• Reanalysis of clinical trials from a previous meta-analysis (Tolin, 2010).
• A comprehensive meta-analysis involving a survey of 91 CBT experts to identify bona fide CBT treatments.
• Inclusion of 13 clinical trials comparing CBT and non-CBT interventions for adult anxiety disorders.

Main Results:

• The reanalysis confirmed small to medium effect sizes for disorder-specific symptom measures but found no evidence of CBT superiority for non-disorder-specific outcomes in depression and anxiety.
• The comprehensive anxiety meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in efficacy between CBT and bona fide non-CBT treatments for both disorder-specific and non-disorder-specific symptom measures.

Conclusions:

• The findings do not support the conjecture that cognitive-behavioral therapy is superior to bona fide non-CBT treatments for adult anxiety disorders.
• This study, along with prior meta-analytic evidence, fails to corroborate the claim of CBT's universal superiority in treating anxiety disorders.