Cited by 572Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 212 of the 212 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 18 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

How effective are cognitive behavior therapies for major depression and anxiety disorders? A meta-analytic update of the evidence

Open access

Abstract

We report the current best estimate of the effects of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) in the treatment of major depression (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder (PAD) and social anxiety disorder (SAD).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wps.20346

Cites

212 of 212 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

8 of 18 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 40 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 37
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 5
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
39 of 39

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.

  • The GAD placebo result reverses the claimed control-group pattern

    Minor

    The discussion says waiting-list comparisons produced significantly larger effects than pill-placebo comparisons for every disorder. For GAD, the results report the opposite: the pill-placebo effect was significantly larger than the waiting-list effect.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 208 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Carrington CH., 1979, A comparison of cognitive and analytically oriented brief treatment approaches to depression in black women
  2. Cullen JM., 2002, Dissertation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–571 of 571

Metadata

Authors
Cuijpers, P., Cristea, I. A., Karyotaki, E., Reijnders, M., & Huibers, M. J. H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Babeș-Bolyai University (RO)
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-22
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
245-258
ISSN
  • 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-5545
OpenAlex
W2522867222
Cited by
572
References
208
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 2
FWCI
70.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, anxiety disorders, treatment efficacy, waiting list control group, publication bias, trial quality, placebo comparison

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 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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