Cited by 288Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 20 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

D-Cycloserine Augmentation of Exposure-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data

Open access

Abstract

Importance: Whether and under which conditions D-cycloserine (DCS) augments the effects of exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders is unclear. Objective: To clarify whether DCS is superior to placebo in augmenting the effects of cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders and to evaluate whether antidepressants interact with DCS and the effect of potential moderating variables. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 10, 2016. Reference lists of previous reviews and meta-analyses and reports of randomized clinical trials were also checked. Study Selection: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were (1) double-blind randomized clinical trials of DCS as an augmentation strategy for exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy and (2) conducted in humans diagnosed as having specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Raw data were obtained from the authors and quality controlled. Data were ranked to ensure a consistent metric across studies (score range, 0-100). We used a 3-level multilevel model nesting repeated measures of outcomes within participants, who were nested within studies. Results: Individual participant data were obtained for 21 of 22 eligible trials, representing 1047 of 1073 eligible participants. When controlling for antidepressant use, participants receiving DCS showed greater improvement from pretreatment to posttreatment (mean difference, -3.62; 95% CI, -0.81 to -6.43; P = .01; d = -0.25) but not from pretreatment to midtreatment (mean difference, -1.66; 95% CI, -4.92 to 1.60; P = .32; d = -0.14) or from pretreatment to follow-up (mean difference, -2.98, 95% CI, -5.99 to 0.03; P = .05; d = -0.19). Additional analyses showed that participants assigned to DCS were associated with lower symptom severity than those assigned to placebo at posttreatment and at follow-up. Antidepressants did not moderate the effects of DCS. None of the prespecified patient-level or study-level moderators was associated with outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: D-cycloserine is associated with a small augmentation effect on exposure-based therapy. This effect is not moderated by the concurrent use of antidepressants. Further research is needed to identify patient and/or therapy characteristics associated with DCS response.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In this individual participant data meta-analysis, D-cycloserine (DCS) produced a small short-term augmentation effect on exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders. The effect was not moderated by antidepressant use, and only publication year emerged as a significant moderator.

Key findings

  • Controlling for antidepressant use, DCS was superior to placebo from pretreatment to posttreatment (mean difference, −3.62; 95% CI, −0.81 to −6.43; P = .01; d = −0.25), but not from pretreatment to midtreatment (mean difference, −1.66; 95% CI, −4.92 to 1.60; P = .32; d = −0.14) or follow-up (mean difference, −2.98; 95% CI, −5.99 to 0.03; P = .05; d = −0.19).
  • DCS recipients had lower symptom severity than placebo recipients at posttreatment (difference, −3.19; 95% CI, −0.95 to −5.43; P = .006; d = −0.21) and follow-up (difference, −2.54; 95% CI, −0.04 to −5.04; P = .05; d = −0.16).
  • Antidepressants did not moderate DCS effects, but regardless of randomized treatment, participants taking antidepressants improved more from pretreatment to follow-up (difference, −4.32; 95% CI, −0.64 to −8.01; P = .02; d = −0.28).
  • Only publication year was a significant moderator: more recent studies showed smaller DCS–placebo differences at follow-up (b = 4.02; 95% CI, 0.59–7.45; P = .02; d = 0.26). Subgroup analyses found DCS advantage only for social anxiety disorder, and antidepressant moderation only for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (n = 77; 2 studies).

Methods

  • One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis of double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials of DCS augmentation for exposure-based CBT/behavior therapy in specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder; PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 10, 2016.
  • IPD were obtained for 21 of 22 eligible trials, representing 1047 of 1073 eligible participants (523 DCS, 521 placebo; 3 missing group allocation); mean (SD) age was 32.1 (13.5) years, 516 (49.4%) were women, 275 (26.9%) were receiving antidepressants, and mean (SD) treatment sessions were 7.6 (4.5).
  • Outcomes were harmonized to ranked scores (range 0–100) and analyzed with a 3-level multilevel model nesting repeated measures within participants within studies, using intent-to-treat analyses and testing prespecified and post hoc moderators.

Limitations

  • The paper states less power to detect study-level moderators/predictors and for subgroup analyses; only 4 pediatric studies, limiting generalizability to younger populations; different outcome measures required transformation to ranked scores; and in-session experiences could not be examined as moderators.
  • Evident from the text: one eligible trial (26 participants) could not be included because the local ethics committee did not allow data sharing, leaving 97.6% of available data; discrepancies between provided IPD and original reports were found in 16 of 21 studies (29 mismatches, mostly antidepressant medication counts); and DCS dose was highly skewed (428/523 [81.8%] received 50 mg), with most trials administering the drug about 1 hour before exposure, limiting variability for dose and timing analyses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3955

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 20 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 31 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 24
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
39 of 39
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A substantial proportion of patients with anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, or posttraumatic stress disorders do not achieve sufficient symptom relief with first-line CBT or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and require additional long-term care.

    “While there is ample support for the efficacy of CBT and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a substantial proportion of patients do not achieve sufficient symptom relief and require additional long-term care.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In one study with a mismatch on the medication breakdown, the actual data set was correct.

    “where we assumed that the actual data set was correct”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Midtreatment confidence interval is not centered on its estimate

    Minor

    The reported 95% CI has a midpoint of -3.20, not the reported difference of -1.69. The other reported confidence intervals for these differences are centered on their estimates.

    Reported -1.69 · recomputed -3.2

  • Number of studies screened differs between text and flowchart

    Minor

    The results say 377 studies were analyzed for eligibility, while the flowchart says 376 studies were screened for eligibility.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. West Sussex, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mataix-Cols, D., Fernández de la Cruz, L., Monzani, B., Rosenfield, D., Andersson, E., Pérez-Vigil, A., Frumento, P., de Kleine, R. A., Difede, J., Dunlop, B. W., Farrell, L. J., Geller, D., Gerardi, M., Guastella, A. J., Hofmann, S. G., Hendriks, G.-J., Kushner, M. G., Lee, F. S., Lenze, E. J., Levinson, C. A., McConnell, H., Otto, M. W., Plag, J., Pollack, M. H., Ressler, K. J., Rodebaugh, T. L., Rothbaum, B. O., Scheeringa, M. S., Siewert-Siegmund, A., Smits, J. A. J., Storch, E. A., Ströhle, A., Tart, C. D., Tolin, D. F., van Minnen, A., Waters, A. M., Weems, C. F., Wilhelm, S., Wyka, K., Davis, M., Rück, C., and the DCS Anxiety Consortium, Altemus, M., Anderson, P., Cukor, J., Finck, C., Geffken, G. R., Golfels, F., Goodman, W. K., Gutner, C., Heyman, I., Jovanovic, T., Lewin, A. B., McNamara, J. P., Murphy, T. K., Norrholm, S., & Thuras, P.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden2Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Southern Methodist University (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Center for Anxiety Disorders Overwaal, Institution for Integrated Mental Health Care Pro Persona, Nijmegen, the Netherlands7Behavioral Science Institute, NijCare, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • Stiftung Charité (DE)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • New Mexico VA Health Care System (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
  • Region Stockholm (SE)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
  • Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US)
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
501
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2581718547
Cited by
288
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 19
FWCI
51.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • University of Oxford
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA007261)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
D-cycloserine, augmentation therapy, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, symptom severity, treatment response variability, placebo response, medication adherence, individual differences in treatment response, individual differences
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Anxiety Disorders, Combined Modality Therapy, Cycloserine, Drug Synergism, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, N-Methylaspartate, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Excitatory Amino Acid Agonists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review