Cited by 246Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

The efficacy of recommended treatments for veterans with PTSD: A metaregression analysis

Open access
Haagen, Joris F.G., Smid, Geert E., Knipscheer, Jeroen W., Kleber, Rolf J.·2015·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Soldiers and veterans diagnosed with PTSD benefit less from psychotherapy than non-military populations. The current meta-analysis identified treatment predictors for traumatised soldiers and veterans, using data from studies examining guideline recommended interventions, namely: EMDR, exposure, cognitive, cognitive restructuring, cognitive processing, trauma-focused cognitive behavioural, and stress management therapies. A systematic search identified 57 eligible studies reporting on 69 treated samples. Exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy were more effective than EMDR and stress management therapy. Group-only therapy formats performed worse compared with individual-only formats, or a combination of both formats. After controlling for study design variables, EMDR no longer negatively predicted treatment outcome. The number of trauma-focused sessions, unlike the total number of psychotherapy sessions, positively predicted treatment outcome. We found a relationship between PTSD pretreatment severity levels and treatment outcome, indicating lower treatment gains at low and high PTSD severity levels compared with moderate severity levels. Demographic variables did not influence treatment outcome. Consequently, soldiers and veterans are best served using exposure interventions to target PTSD. Our results did not support a group-only therapy format. Recommended interventions appear less effective at relatively low and high patient PTSD severity levels. Future high-quality studies are needed to determine the efficacy of EMDR.

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.2015.06.008

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • Findings of two meta-analyses indicated that cognitive processing therapy may be the most effective treatment for post-traumatic stress symptoms compared to other psychotherapies and medications across several traumatized groups.

    “The findings of two meta-analyses [21,22] have indicated that CPT may be the most effective treatment for PTS symptoms (compared to other psychotherapies and medications) across several traumatized groups.”

    From Psychological Interventions for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence in Humanitarian Settings: An Overview of the Evidence and Implementation Considerations (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Discussion reports that CPT and exposure therapy predicted better PTSD treatment outcomes for veterans and soldiers, and the Clinical implications section prefers both over stress management therapy. It does not establish CPT as more effective than other psychotherapies or medications, or extend that comparison across several traumatized groups. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 2

  1. [7]7. Battegay, R. (1977). Möglichkeiten und Gefahren der Gruppenpsychotherapie [Possibilities and dangers of group psychotherapy]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 25(1), 52-63.
  2. [32]32. Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2008). Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: An assessment of the evidence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haagen, J. F. G., Smid, G. E., Knipscheer, J. W., & Kleber, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Foundation Centrum '45 (NL)
Corresponding author
Haagen, Joris F.G.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
40
Pages
184-194
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W776481976
Cited by
246
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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, veterans, military personnel, psychotherapy efficacy, EMDR, exposure therapy, cognitive processing therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, group versus individual therapy, treatment outcome predictors, PTSD symptom severity, treatment response
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychotherapy, Regression Analysis, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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