Cited by 528Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

A meta-analysis of treatment outcome for panic disorder

Gould, Robert A., Ott, Michael W., Pollack, Mark H.·1995·Clinical Psychology Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0272-7358(95)00048-8

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Among cognitive-behavioral treatments for panic disorder, those that combined cognitive restructuring with interoceptive exposure showed the strongest effect (ES=0.88).

    “Among the cognitive-behavioral treatments, those that combined cognitive restructuring with interoceptive exposure showed the strongest effect (ES=0.88).”

    From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Gould et al. (1995)

  • Cognitive-behavioral treatments in general had the highest effect size (ES=0.68) for panic disorder compared to pharmacological treatments (ES=0.47) or combination treatments (ES=0.56).

    “Cognitive-behavioral treatments in general had the highest effect size (ES=0.68) compared to pharmacological treatments (ES=0.47) or combination treatments (ES=0.56).”

    From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Gould et al. (1995)

  • CBT treatment for panic disorder showed virtually no slippage in effect size (0.07) by 1-year follow-up as compared to sizable slippage (0.46) for pharmacological treatment.

    “Perhaps most impressive is that the CBT treatment showed virtually no b slippage Q in effect size, ( 0.07) by 1-year follow-up as compared to sizable slippage ( 0.46) for pharmacological treatment.”

    From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Gould et al. (1995)

  • There was a significantly lower attrition rate among cognitive-behavioral treatments (5.6%) compared to pharmacological treatments (19.8%) for panic disorder.

    “Importantly, there was also a significantly lower attrition rate among cognitive-behavioral treatments (5.6%) compared to pharmacological treatments (19.8%).”

    From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Gould et al. (1995)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gould, R. A., Ott, M. W., & Pollack, M. H.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gould, Robert A.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-01
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
819-844
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018932036
Cited by
520
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
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
panic disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, imipramine, interoceptive exposure, cognitive restructuring, treatment outcomes, attrition, cost-effectiveness, maintenance of treatment gains

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