Cited by 593Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Treatment of complex PTSD: results of the ISTSS expert clinician survey on best practices.

Cloitre, Marylene, Courtois, Christine A., Charuvastra, Anthony, Carapezza, Richard, Stolbach, Bradley C., Green, Bonnie L.·2011·Journal of Traumatic Stress

Abstract

This study provides a summary of the results of an expert opinion survey initiated by the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies Complex Trauma Task Force regarding best practices for the treatment of complex posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Ratings from a mail‐in survey from 25 complex PTSD experts and 25 classic PTSD experts regarding the most appropriate treatment approaches and interventions for complex PTSD were examined for areas of consensus and disagreement. Experts agreed on several aspects of treatment, with 84% endorsing a phase‐based or sequenced therapy as the most appropriate treatment approach with interventions tailored to specific symptom sets. First‐line interventions matched to specific symptoms included emotion regulation strategies, narration of trauma memory, cognitive restructuring, anxiety and stress management, and interpersonal skills. Meditation and mindfulness interventions were frequently identified as an effective second‐line approach for emotional, attentional, and behavioral (e.g., aggression) disturbances. Agreement was not obtained on either the expected course of improvement or on duration of treatment. The survey results provide a strong rationale for conducting research focusing on the relative merits of traditional trauma‐focused therapies and sequenced multicomponent approaches applied to different patient populations with a range of symptom profiles. Sustained symptom monitoring during the course of treatment and during extended follow‐up would advance knowledge about both the speed and durability of treatment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jts.20697

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cloitre, M., Courtois, C. A., Charuvastra, A., Carapezza, R., Stolbach, B. C., & Green, B. L.
Affiliations
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Journal of Traumatic Stress
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-12
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
615-627
ISSN
  • 0894-9867 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6598
OpenAlex
W2060194889
Cited by
593
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 9
FWCI
27.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Traumatic Stress (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
complex PTSD, expert consensus, trauma-focused psychotherapy, emotion regulation, trauma narration, cognitive restructuring, mindfulness, meditation, interpersonal skills training, aggression, treatment duration, symptom monitoring
MeSH terms
Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Health Care Surveys

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