Cited by 444Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Psychological treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis

Rosa-Alcázar, Ana I., Sánchez-Meca, Julio, Gómez-Conesa, Antonia, Marín-Martínez, Fulgencio·2008·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

The benefits of cognitive-behavioral treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have been evidenced by several meta-analyses. However, the differential effectiveness of behavioral and cognitive approaches has shown inconclusive results. In this paper a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for OCD is presented by applying random- and mixed-effects models. The literature search enabled us to identify 19 studies published between 1980 and 2006 that fulfilled our selection criteria, giving a total of 24 independent comparisons between a treated and a control group. The effect size index was the standardized mean difference in the posttest. The effect estimates for exposure with response prevention (ERP) alone (d(+)=1.127), cognitive restructuring (CR) alone (d(+)=1.090), and ERP plus CR (d(+)=0.998) were very similar, although the effect estimate for CR alone was based on only three comparisons. Therapist-guided exposure was better than therapist-assisted self-exposure, and exposure in vivo combined with exposure in imagination was better than exposure in vivo alone. The relationships of subject, methodological and extrinsic variables with effect size were also examined, and an analysis of publication bias was carried out. Finally, the implications of the results for clinical practice and for future research in this field were discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.001

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosa-Alcázar, A. I., Sánchez-Meca, J., Gómez-Conesa, A., & Marín-Martínez, F.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
1310-1325
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984403880
Cited by
444
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 29
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, psychological intervention, exposure and response prevention, cognitive restructuring, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavior therapy, in vivo exposure, treatment effectiveness, publication bias
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Behavior Therapy, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Publication Bias, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic

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