Cited by 232Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

A brief exposure-based treatment vs cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized noninferiority clinical trial

Open access
Sloan, Denise M., Marx, Brian P., Lee, Daniel J., Resick, Patricia A.·2018·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Importance: Written exposure therapy (WET), a 5-session intervention, has been shown to efficaciously treat posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, this treatment has not yet been directly compared with a first-line PTSD treatment such as cognitive processing therapy (CPT). Objective: To determine if WET is noninferior to CPT in patients with PTSD. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a Veterans Affairs medical facility between February 28, 2013, and November 6, 2016, 126 veteran and nonveteran adults were randomized to either WET or CPT. Inclusion criteria were a primary diagnosis of PTSD and stable medication therapy. Exclusion criteria included current psychotherapy for PTSD, high risk of suicide, diagnosis of psychosis, and unstable bipolar illness. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Interventions: Participants assigned to CPT (n = 63) received 12 sessions and participants assigned to WET (n = 63) received 5 sessions. The CPT protocol that includes written accounts was delivered individually in 60-minute weekly sessions. The first WET session requires 60 minutes while the remaining 4 sessions require 40 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total score on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5; noninferiority was defined by a score of 10 points. Blinded evaluations were conducted at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks after the first treatment session. Treatment dropout was also examined. Results: For the 126 participants (66 men and 60 women; mean [SD] age, 43.9 [14.6] years), improvements in PTSD symptoms in the WET condition were noninferior to improvements in the CPT condition at each of the assessment periods. The largest difference between treatments was observed at the 24-week assessment (mean difference, 4.31 points; 95% CI, -1.37 to 9.99). There were significantly fewer dropouts in the WET vs CPT condition (4 [6.4%] vs 25 [39.7%]; χ21 = 12.84, Cramer V = 0.40). Conclusions and Relevance: Although WET involves fewer sessions, it was noninferior to CPT in reducing symptoms of PTSD. The findings suggest that WET is an efficacious and efficient PTSD treatment that may reduce attrition and transcend previously observed barriers to PTSD treatment for both patients and providers. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01800773.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.4249

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Gibbon M, First MB. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Patient Edition. New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute Biometrics Research Department; 1994.
  2. Morland LA, Mackintosh MA, Rosen CS, et al. Telemedicine versus in-person delivery of cognitive processing therapy for women with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized noninferiority trial. Depress Anxiety. 2015;32(11):811-820.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sloan, D. M., Marx, B. P., Lee, D. J., & Resick, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sloan, Denise M.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2018-03-01
Volume
75
Issue
3
Pages
233
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2784527080
Cited by
232
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
27.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (4r01mh095737-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01‐MH095737, R0MH095737)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, written exposure therapy, cognitive processing therapy, non-inferiority, veterans, PTSD symptom severity, treatment discontinuation, psychotherapy comparison, brief psychotherapy, suicide risk, psychosis risk, treatment efficacy, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Equivalence Trials as Topic, Adult, Boston, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Dropouts, Psychotherapy, Brief, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans, Writing, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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.

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