Cited by 149Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesGambling Behavior and Treatments

Cue exposure therapy for the treatment of alcohol use disorders: a meta-analytic review

Open access
Mellentin, Angelina I., Skøt, Lotte, Nielsen, Bent, Schippers, Gerard M., Nielsen, Anette S., Stenager, Elsebeth, Juhl, Carsten·2017·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Cue Exposure Therapy (CET) is a behavioristic psychological approach to treating substance use disorders (SUD). Prior systematic reviews have found CET to be ineffective when targeting SUDs. The effect of this approach on alcohol use disorders (AUD) seems more promising at trial level but has yet to be systematically reviewed and quantitatively analyzed. Therefore, we aimed to examine the effectiveness of CET targeting AUD compared to active control conditions in a meta-analytic review. Following a systematic search of the literature, a total of seven controlled trials were identified. CET showed no to small additional effects on drinking intensity and drinking frequency, a small additional effect on total drinking score and a moderate additional effect on latency to relapse. Stratification and analysis of a-priori defined trial covariates revealed that CET may have an increased effect in the longer term, and that CET combined with urge-specific coping skills may be the better option for treating AUD than conventional CET. Also, CET may prove less effective when comparing it to cognitive behaviour therapy as opposed to other active control conditions. The overall quality of evidence was graded low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision and suspected publication bias. Sounder methodological trials are needed to derive a firm conclusion about the effectiveness of CET for treating AUD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.07.006

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Mellentin, A. I., Skøt, L., Nielsen, B., Schippers, G. M., Nielsen, A. S., Stenager, E., & Juhl, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Mellentin, Angelina I.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
57
Pages
195-207
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2740457908
Cited by
149
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Lundbeckfonden (R155‐2012‐11282)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
cue exposure therapy, alcoholism, alcohol relapse, drinking intensity, cognitive behavioral therapy, addiction treatment, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Alcoholism, Cues, Humans, Implosive Therapy, 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