The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of predictors and moderators of response to psychological therapies in OCD: Do we have enough empirical evidence to target treatment?
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“And whilst substantial ground has been covered in the adult literature [38–40], this is not the case in treatment for mental disorders in adolescents and young adults [30].”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Previous research has recognised the influence of treatment and therapist-related characteristics on treatment outcomes in various disorders, including borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Barnicot et al., 2012;Knopp, Knowles, Bee, Lovell, & Bower, 2013).”
From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Knopp et al., 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While a box-score approach was utilised to synthesise the results, this method is limited by the lack of consideration given to the magnitude of the effect (Green & Hall, 1984;Knopp et al., 2013).”
From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Knopp et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · Cited by 20,391
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Widiger, T. A. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10518-009 · Cited by 19,766
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change
Garfield, S. L., Bergin, A. E., & Dryden, W. (1987) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.1.4.264a · Cited by 3,998
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kazantzis, N., Whittington, C., Zelencich, L., Kyrios, M., Norton, P. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2016) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2016.05.002 · Cited by 280
Epidemiological and Clinical Gender Differences in OCD
Mathes, B. M., Morabito, D. M., & Schmidt, N. B. (2019) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-019-1015-2 · Cited by 224
Reggente, N., Moody, T. D., Morfini, F., Sheen, C., Rissman, J., O’Neill, J., & Feusner, J. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1716686115 · Cited by 154
Price, O., Baker, J. A., Bee, P., & Lovell, K. (2015) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.114.144576 · Cited by 182
Self-citationSchneider, R. L., Arch, J. J., & Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.02.004 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
