Cited by 3,445Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses

Open access

Abstract

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) refers to a popular therapeutic approach that has been applied to a variety of problems. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive survey of meta-analyses examining the efficacy of CBT. We identified 269 meta-analytic studies and reviewed of those a representative sample of 106 meta-analyses examining CBT for the following problems: substance use disorder, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, depression and dysthymia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, insomnia, personality disorders, anger and aggression, criminal behaviors, general stress, distress due to general medical conditions, chronic pain and fatigue, distress related to pregnancy complications and female hormonal conditions. Additional meta-analytic reviews examined the efficacy of CBT for various problems in children and elderly adults. The strongest support exists for CBT of anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, bulimia, anger control problems, and general stress. Eleven studies compared response rates between CBT and other treatments or control conditions. CBT showed higher response rates than the comparison conditions in 7 of these reviews and only one review reported that CBT had lower response rates than comparison treatments. In general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong. However, additional research is needed to examine the efficacy of CBT for randomized-controlled studies. Moreover, except for children and elderly populations, no meta-analytic studies of CBT have been reported on specific subgroups, such as ethnic minorities and low income samples.

Overview

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 · 10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

4 retracted

Show all 130 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ghahramanlou, M. (2003). Cognitive behavioral treatment efficacy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review. Unpublished Dissertation, Fairleigh Dickinson University.
  2. Guggisberg, K. W. (2005). Methodological review and meta-analysis of treatments for child and adolescent obsessive-compulsive disorder. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
  3. Hofmann, S. G. (2011). An introduction to modern CBT: Psychological solutions to mental health problems. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  4. Phillips, A. S. (2003). A meta-analysis of treatments for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University.
  5. Santacruz, I., Orgilés, M., Rosa, A. I., Sánchez-Meca, J., Méndez, X., & Olivares, J. (2002). Generalized anxiety, separation anxiety and school phobia: The predominance of cognitive-behavioural therapy/Ansiedad generalizada, ansiedad por separación y fobia escolar: el predominio de la terapia cognitivo-conductual. Behavioral Psychology/Psicología Conductual, 10(3), 503–521.
  6. Zimmermann, T., & Heinrichs, N. (2006). Psychosoziale Interventionen für Frauen mit Krebserkrankungen der Genitalorgane/Psychosocial interventions for women with genital cancers. Verhaltenstherapie & Verhaltensmedizin, 27, 125–141.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,047

Metadata

Authors
Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2012-07-31
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
427-440
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W2036735145
Cited by
3,445
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 313 · 2025: 444 · 2024: 307 · 2023: 289 · 2022: 353 · 2021: 373 · 2020: 299 · 2019: 256 · 2018: 225 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 177 · 2015: 101 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 3
FWCI
92.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH073937, R01MH078308, R01MH081116)
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, treatment efficacy, meta-analysis, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, bulimia nervosa, anger management, stress, substance use disorders, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, insomnia, personality disorders, criminal behavior, chronic pain, pregnancy complications, children, older adults, evidence base

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