Cited by 746Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Farchione, Todd J., Fairholme, Christopher P., Ellard, Kristen K., Boisseau, Christina L., Thompson-Hollands, Johanna, Carl, Jenna R., Gallagher, Matthew W., Barlow, David H.·2012·Behavior Therapy

Abstract

This study further evaluates the efficacy of the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP). A diagnostically heterogeneous clinical sample of 37 patients with a principal anxiety disorder diagnosis was enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving up to 18 sessions of treatment and a 6-month follow-up period. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either immediate treatment with the UP (n=26) or delayed treatment, following a 16-week wait-list control period (WLC; n=11). The UP resulted in significant improvement on measures of clinical severity, general symptoms of depression and anxiety, levels of negative and positive affect, and a measure of symptom interference in daily functioning across diagnoses. In comparison, participants in the WLC condition exhibited little to no change following the 16-week wait-list period. The effects of UP treatment were maintained over the 6-month follow-up period. Results from this RCT provide additional evidence for the efficacy of the UP in the treatment of anxiety and comorbid depressive disorders, and provide additional support for a transdiagnostic approach to the treatment of emotional disorders.

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 · 10.1016/j.beth.2012.01.001

Cites

87 of 87 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?

  • In that randomized controlled trial, there was a slight increase in residual symptoms at 6-month follow-up.

    “Improvements in clinical severity and general symptoms of anxiety and depression were maintained at 3-month follow-up, with a slight increase in residual symptoms at 6-month follow-up [95].”

    From Psychotherapeutic treatments for generalized anxiety disorder: cognitive and behavioral therapies, enhancement strategies, and emerging efforts (2022) · cites this paper as [95]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says patients continued to improve six months after treatment, rather than reporting an increase in residual symptoms. The Results section on clinical significance among treatment initiators likewise reports higher rates of subclinical status and treatment response at follow-up than at posttreatment. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fifteen percent of audiotapes will be randomly selected for review by an independent evaluator using fidelity scales adapted from a prior large-scale randomized controlled trial.

    “Fifteen percent of audiotapes will be randomly selected for review by an independent evaluator using fidelity scales adapted from a prior large-scale randomized controlled trial [32].”

    From Unified protocol for the discontinuation of long-term serotonin reuptake inhibitors in obsessive compulsive disorder: Study protocol and methods (2018) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Method section (‘Therapists and Treatment Integrity’; page unavailable) says treatment adherence was monitored in weekly supervision but was not systematically assessed. The Discussion (page unavailable) explicitly says treatment fidelity was not evaluated in this trial, contrary to presenting it as the source of fidelity scales for independent audiotape review. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • No posttreatment symptom differences were found between the immediate-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.

    “Furthermore, no posttreatment symptom differences were observed between the immediate and delayed treatment groups (see Farchione et al., 2012).”

    From Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Common Factor in the Treatment of Emotional Disorders (2013) · cites this paper as Farchione et al., 2012

    The Results section (‘Efficacy at Posttreatment’; page unavailable) reports significant differences between the immediate-treatment group and the wait-list/delayed-treatment group in depression and anxiety symptoms, rather than no differences. The Study Design section clarifies that the delayed group received treatment only after its wait-list assessment. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In that randomized controlled trial, improvements in clinical severity and general anxiety and depression symptoms were maintained at 3-month follow-up.

    “Improvements in clinical severity and general symptoms of anxiety and depression were maintained at 3-month follow-up, with a slight increase in residual symptoms at 6-month follow-up [95].”

    From Psychotherapeutic treatments for generalized anxiety disorder: cognitive and behavioral therapies, enhancement strategies, and emerging efforts (2022) · cites this paper as [95]

    The Results (Efficacy at Posttreatment) report improvements in clinical severity and general anxiety and depression symptoms, and the paper reports that treatment effects were maintained at follow-up. But the Method (Study Design) specifies a 6-month follow-up assessment, not a 3-month one; the claimed follow-up time is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Baseline evaluation found no significant differences in type or severity of psychopathology between eligible participants and those excluded from the trial.

    “No statistical differences in initial severity or demographic variables were observed between treatment completers and noncompleters, and baseline evaluation indicated that no significant differences in the type or severity of psy-chopathology existed between eligible participants and those excluded from the trial (e.g., refused potential randomization to waitlist/delayed treatment condition; see”

    From Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Common Factor in the Treatment of Emotional Disorders (2013) · cites this paper as Farchione et al., 2012

    The Method > Participants passage says that, based on the initial diagnostic evaluation, excluded individuals did not appear to have more severe psychopathology than enrolled and randomized patients. It does not report a statistical comparison or establish that the groups did not differ in type of psychopathology. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Beck AT Rush AJ Shaw BF Emery G 1987 Cognitive therapy of depression New York Guilford Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farchione, T. J., Fairholme, C. P., Ellard, K. K., Boisseau, C. L., Thompson-Hollands, J., Carl, J. R., Gallagher, M. W., & Barlow, D. H.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Farchione, Todd J.
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
666-678
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059796833
Cited by
746
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 14
FWCI
66.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA013727)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH070693, R01MH090053)
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 › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders, transdiagnostic treatment, anxiety disorders, depression, comorbid depression, treatment efficacy, waitlist control, symptom maintenance
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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