Cited by 58Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 250 of the 252 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Respiratory therapy for the treatment of anxiety: Meta-analytic review and regression

Open access

Abstract

Objective Respiratory abnormalities are a hallmark of anxiety symptomatology and may serve as clinically useful modifiers for alleviating anxiety symptoms. However, gold-standard anxiety treatments (e.g., cognitive-behavioral interventions) often do not directly address respiratory components despite their theoretical utility and clinical accessibility. This review examined the clinical effectiveness of respiratory interventions, interventions that directly target respiration abnormalities and processes, in treating trait anxiety symptoms. Methods The final analysis included 40 randomized controlled trials including at least one measure of trait anxiety, a respiratory-focused intervention group, and a non-respiratory control-group (active or inactive treatment). Overall effects of respiratory focused interventions were examined, as well as the effect of hypothesized moderators. Results Respiratory component interventions yielded significantly greater improvements (moderate to large effect) in anxiety symptoms than controls, with the stronger effects observed in comparison to inactive, rather than active, control conditions. Significant heterogeneity in findings suggests that variability in intervention design, population, and control comparison may obfuscate interpretation of findings. Conclusions Evidence supports the clinical utility of respiratory interventions as either an independent anxiety treatment, or as an adjunct to other interventions. Clinical and research implic…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101980

Cites

250 of 250 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 252 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stanley, 2012, Vol. 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Leyro, T. M., Versella, M. V., Yang, M.-J., Brinkman, H. R., Hoyt, D. L., & Lehrer, P.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Leyro, Teresa M.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
84
Pages
101980
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3126092337
Cited by
53
References
252
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
respiratory care, anxiety, trait anxiety, treatment moderators, adjunctive therapy, cognitive-behavioral intervention, treatment effectiveness

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