Cited by 241Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

On the efficacy of the unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Carlucci, Leonardo, Saggino, Aristide, Balsamo, Michela·2021·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

In recent years a large array of treatment protocols conceptualized as transdiagnostic have been developed with clinical and practical advantages compared to traditional single-disorder protocols. Within this panorama, the Transdiagnostic Unified Protocol (UP) of Emotional Disorders was developed aimed at treating the negative affective processes underlying several diagnostic categories, and accounting for the covariance of different emotional disorders. The UP has been found to efficiently target the roots of these disorders leading to a reduction in symptoms of co-occurring disorders. However, several questions have marginally addressed in the previous studies, and some UP features still remain unexplored. The present meta-analysis aims at evaluating whether the UP results to significant changes in anxiety and depression symptoms severity in children, adolescents, and adults. 19 RCTs and 13 uncontrolled pre-post trials comprising 2183 patients/clients met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Large to moderate combined overall effect size for both depression plus anxiety were detected in the uncontrolled pre-post studies (g = 0.756) and in RTCs studies (g = 0.452), respectively. Large effect size at pre-treatment to 3-6-month follow-up was observed for combined depression plus anxiety (g = 1.113). Subgroup analysis suggested that UP treatment does not differ across the anxiety and depression self-report measures. Moreover, UP intervention outperformed both passive and active control conditions to treat negative affective syndromes. Meta-regression confirmed the moderate effects of therapist level of experience, the sample characteristics, and the UP-protocol adaptations. The findings indicate that the manualized UP treatment has potential to contribute to improving mental health outcomes, particularly of anxiety and depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101999

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Carlucci, L., Saggino, A., & Balsamo, M.
Affiliations
University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
Corresponding author
Carlucci, Leonardo
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
87
Pages
101999
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3134743031
Cited by
234
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
transdiagnostic treatment, emotional disorders, anxiety, depression, negative affect, treatment efficacy, children and adolescents, adults, manualized psychotherapy, therapist experience
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Child, Clinical Protocols, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Mood Disorders

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