The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 7 are not checked yet.
A comprehensive meta-analysis of interpretation biases in depression
Open accessAbstract
Interpretation biases have long been theorized to play a central role in depression. Yet, the strength of the empirical evidence for this bias remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the overall effect size and to identify moderators relevant to theory and methodology. PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and dissertation databases were searched. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on 87 studies (N=9443). Results revealed a medium overall effect size (g=0.72, 95%-CI:[0.62;0.82]). Equivalent effect sizes were observed for patients diagnosed with clinical depression (g=0.60, 95%-CI:[0.37;0.75]), patients remitted from depression (g=0.59, 95%-CI:[0.33;0.86]), and undiagnosed individuals reporting elevated depressive symptoms (g=0.66, 95%-CI:[0.47;0.84]). The effect size was larger for self-referential stimuli (g=0.90, 95%-CI[0.78;1.01]), but was not modified by the presence (g=0.74, 95%-CI[0.59;0.90]) or absence (g=0.72, 95%-CI[0.58;0.85]) of mental imagery instructions. Similar effect sizes were observed for a negative interpretation bias (g=0.58, 95%-CI:[0.40;0.75]) and lack of a positive interpretation bias (g=0.60, 95%-CI:[0.36;0.85]). The effect size was only significant when interpretation bias was measured directly (g=0.88, 95%-CI[0.77;0.99]), but not when measured indirectly (g=0.04, 95%-CI[-0.14;0.22]). It is concluded that depression is associated with interpretation biases, but caution is necessary because methodological factors shape conclusions. Implications and recommendations for future research are outlined.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This linkage across negative beliefs, subsequent psychopathology, and examining and restructuring these beliefs to reduce depression is well established (e.g., Everaert et al., 2017; Diehle et al., 2014).”
From I've Seen Enough: Measuring the Toll of Content Moderation on Mental Health (2025) · cites this paper as Everaert et al., 2017
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.
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
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_121117 · Cited by 20,772
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
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
Bower, G. H. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.2.129 · Cited by 4,154
Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses
Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d549 · Cited by 2,884
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Dickson, 2015, Investigating the role of cognitive biases as a risk factor for depression (Dissertation Abstracts International)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mental illness and well‐being: an affect regulation perspective
Gross, J. J., Uusberg, H., & Uusberg, A. (2019) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20618 · Cited by 277
Distorted Cognitive Processes in Major Depression: A Predictive Processing Perspective
Κube, T., Schwarting, R. K. W., Rozenkrantz, L., Glombiewski, J. A., & Rief, W. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.07.017 · Cited by 257
Dolcos, F., Katsumi, Y., Moore, M., Berggren, N., de Gelder, B., Derakshan, N., Hamm, A. O., Koster, E. H. W., Ladouceur, C. D., Okon‐Singer, H., et al. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.08.017 · Cited by 247
Self-citationBoemo, T., Nieto, I., Vazquez, C., & Sanchez-Lopez, A. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104747 · Cited by 191
Uusberg, A., Taxer, J. L., Yih, J., Uusberg, H., & Gross, J. J. (2019) · Emotion Review · doi:10.1177/1754073919862617 · Cited by 220
Metadata
- Authors
- Everaert, J., Podina, I. R., & Koster, E. H. W.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- University of Bucharest (RO)
- Corresponding author
- Everaert, Jonas
- Venue
- Clinical Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 58
- Pages
- 33-48
- ISSN
- 0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2756528888
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 133
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 5.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Yale University
- Universiteit Gent
- Universitatea din București
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Keywords
- interpretation bias, depression, cognitive biases, negative interpretation bias, mental imagery, depression remission, depressive symptoms
- MeSH terms
- Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Thinking
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
