Cited by 164Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

A systematic review of predictors and moderators of response to psychological therapies in OCD: Do we have enough empirical evidence to target treatment?

Open access
Knopp, Jasmin, Knowles, Sarah, Bee, Penny, Lovell, Karina, Bower, Peter·2013·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a disabling mental health condition. Despite effective psychological treatments for OCD, a significant percentage of patients fail to experience lasting benefit. Factors underlying variable treatment response are poorly understood. Moderators of outcome can help understand "for whom" and "under what circumstances" an intervention works best and thus improve service effectiveness. This paper synthesizes the evidence on predictors and moderators and assesses the quality of reporting of related analyses in psychological therapies for adults with OCD. Trials were identified through electronic searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE), key author, and reference list searches of relevant systematic reviews. Fifty five percent (38/69) of relevant trials reported baseline factors associated with outcome; these encompassed clinical, demographic, interpersonal, OCD symptom-specific, psychological/psychosocial, and treatment-specific variables. Predictors were commonly assessed via a validated pre-randomization measure, though few trials adopted best practice by stating a priori hypotheses or conducting a test of interaction. Potential associations emerged between worse OCD treatment outcome and the following factors: hoarding pathology, increased anxiety and OCD symptom severity, certain OCD symptom subtypes, unemployment, and being single/not married. However, the applied utility of these analyses is currently limited by methodological weaknesses.

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.cpr.2013.08.008

Cites

94 of 94 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?

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

1 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Box-score review and quality assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 3.4.
  2. Sun, X., Briel, M., Busse, J. W., You, J. J., Akl, E. A., Mejza, F., et al. (2012). Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1553. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knopp, J., Knowles, S., Bee, P., Lovell, K., & Bower, P.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Knopp, Jasmin
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
1067-1081
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161829398
Cited by
164
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (SPCR-040)
  • NIHR School for Primary Care Research
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, psychotherapy, treatment response, predictors of treatment outcome, moderators of treatment outcome, treatment moderators, hoarding, anxiety, symptom severity, unemployment, marital status, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Humans, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Marital Status

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