Cited by 104Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

A meta-analytic review of exposure in group cognitive behavioral therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder

Barrera, T.L., Mott, J.M., Hofstein, R.F., Teng, E.J.·2013·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Although the efficacy of exposure is well established in individual cognitive behavioral treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), some clinicians and researchers have expressed concerns regarding the use of in-session disclosure of trauma details through imaginal exposure in group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) for PTSD. Thus, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the empirical support for GCBT in the treatment of PTSD and to compare GCBT protocols that encourage the disclosure of trauma details via in-session exposure to GCBT protocols that do not include in-session exposure. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of GCBT for PTSD were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 651 participants with PTSD were included in the 12 eligible GCBT treatment conditions (5 conditions included in-group exposure, 7 conditions did not include in-group exposure). The overall pre-post effect size of GCBT for PTSD (ES=1.13 [SE=0.22, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.56, p<.001]). suggests that GCBT is an effective intervention for individuals with PTSD. No significant differences in effect sizes were found between GCBT treatments that included in-group exposure and those that did not. Although the attrition rate was higher in treatments that included exposure in-group, this rate is comparable to attrition rates in individual CBT treatments and pharmacotherapy for PTSD. The results from this meta-analysis suggest that concerns about the potenti…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.005

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
Barrera, T. L., Mott, J. M., Hofstein, R. F., & Teng, E. J.
Affiliations
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Teng, E.J.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
24-32
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997119454
Cited by
103
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Health Services Research and Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, group cognitive behavioral therapy, imaginal exposure, treatment efficacy, attrition
MeSH terms
Humans, Implosive Therapy, Psychotherapy, Group, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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