Cited by 16Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

The Metacognitive Training for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A pilot study

Open access
Miegel, Franziska, Demiralay, Cüneyt, Sure, Anna, Moritz, Steffen, Hottenrott, Birgit, Cludius, Barbara, Jelinek, Lena·2022·Current Psychology

Abstract

More than 50% of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) do not receive first-line psychological treatment such as cognitive-behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention. To narrow this treatment gap, there is an urgent need for therapies that are easy to disseminate and highly accepted by patients. The aim of the present pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Metacognitive Group Training for OCD (MCT-OCD). Fifty patients with OCD participated in the MCT-OCD for 4 weeks during their inpatient stay in a single-arm pilot trial. Patients were assessed before and after the intervention and filled out an online survey 6 months after post assessment. Results showed a decrease in obsessive compulsive symptoms according to the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (primary outcome) from baseline to post assessment with a large effect size. Symptom reduction remained stable over 6 months and was positively correlated with appraisal ratings of the training. The reduction in frequency of obsessive compulsive symptoms, distress due to obsessive compulsive symptoms, cognitive biases, and depressive symptoms remained stable over 6 months after the intervention. Our findings tentatively imply that the MCT-OCD is a promising treatment for OCD patients. A randomized controlled trial is thus warranted to further clarify the efficacy of the MCT-OCD. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012531), date of registration: 16.06.2017.

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/s12144-020-01158-5

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • The MCT-OCD in its pilot version has been shown to result in a reduction of OC symptoms with large effect sizes.

    “and to result in a reduction of OC symptoms with large effect sizes [49]”

    From Metacognitive Training for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Discussion (page not supplied) reports a large decline in OC symptoms from baseline to post-treatment (d = 1.48) after patients participated in the pilot MCT-OCD. But MCT-OCD was an add-on to other inpatient treatments, and the authors say the reduction cannot be exclusively attributed to it. The claim overstates the evidence by saying MCT-OCD was shown to result in the reduction. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The MCT-OCD pilot study demonstrated that patients' OC symptoms decreased with a large effect from baseline to post assessment (η2partial = 0.50).

    “Evaluation of the effectiveness of the MCT-OCD pilot study demonstrated that patients’ OC symptoms decreased with a large effect from baseline to post assessment (η2partial = 0.50) [49].”

    From Metacognitive Training for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Discussion reports a large decline in OC symptoms from baseline to post-assessment (d = 1.48). However, the table in our copy places partial η² = 0.50 under the analysis spanning baseline, post-assessment, and follow-up, not the baseline-to-post comparison. The study also notes that MCT-OCD was added to other inpatient treatments, so the decline cannot be attributed exclusively to it. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wells, A. (2000). Emotional disorders and metacognition: Innovative cognitive therapy. Chichester: Wiley.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miegel, F., Demiralay, C., Sure, A., Moritz, S., Hottenrott, B., Cludius, B., & Jelinek, L.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Miegel, Franziska
Venue
Current Psychology
Published
2020-11-26
Volume
41
Issue
10
Pages
7114-7124
ISSN
  • 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4733
OpenAlex
W3107352550
Cited by
15
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Current Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, metacognitive training, treatment gap, inpatient care, cognitive biases, depressive symptoms, symptom maintenance, treatment acceptability

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