Cited by 139Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Control condition design and implementation features in controlled trials: a meta-analysis of trials evaluating psychotherapy for depression

Open access
Mohr, David C, Ho, Joyce, Hart, Tae L, Baron, Kelly G, Berendsen, Mark, Beckner, Victoria, Cai, Xuan, Cuijpers, Pim, Spring, Bonnie, Kinsinger, Sarah W, Schroder, Kerstin E, Duffecy, Jenna·2014·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Control conditions are the primary methodology used to reduce threats to internal validity in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis examined the effects of control arm design and implementation on outcomes in RCTs examining psychological treatments for depression. A search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE identified all RCTs evaluating psychological treatments for depression published through June 2009. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects models. One hundred twenty-five trials were identified yielding 188 comparisons. Outcomes varied significantly depending control condition design (p < 0.0001). Significantly smaller effect sizes were seen when control arms used manualization (p = 0.006), therapist training (p = 0.002), therapist supervision (p = 0.009), and treatment fidelity monitoring (p = 0.003). There were no significant effects for differences in therapist experience, level of expertise in the treatment delivered, or nesting vs. crossing therapists in treatment arms. These findings demonstrate the substantial effect that decisions regarding control arm definition and implementation can have on RCT outcomes.

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/s13142-014-0262-3

Cites

31 of 31 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2005.
  2. SAS Institute Inc. SAS version 9.02. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.; 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–139 of 139

Metadata

Authors
Mohr, D. C., Ho, J., Hart, T. L., Baron, K. G., Berendsen, M., Beckner, V., Cai, X., Cuijpers, P., Spring, B., Kinsinger, S. W., Schroder, K. E., & Duffecy, J.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Mohr, David C
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2014-05-02
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
407-423
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W2015937454
Cited by
139
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH095753, R01MH059708)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
control conditions, depression, psychotherapy, psychological intervention, internal validity, manualization, therapist training, therapist supervision, therapist experience

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