Cited by 58Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Internet-based treatment for panic disorder: A three-arm randomized controlled trial comparing guided (via real-time video sessions) with unguided self-help treatment and a waitlist control. PAXPD study results

Ciuca, Amalia M., Berger, Thomas, Crişan, Liviu G., Miclea, Mircea·2018·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

A growing body of evidence suggests that Internet-based cognitive behavioral treatments (ICBT) are effective to treat anxiety disorders. However, the effect of therapist guidance in ICBT is still under debate and guided ICBT offered in a real-time audio-video communication format has not yet been systematically investigated. This three-arm RCT compared the efficacy of guided with unguided ICBT (12 weeks intervention) and a waitlist (WL). A total of 111 individuals meeting the diagnostic criteria for panic disorder (PD) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Primary outcomes were the severity of self-report panic symptoms and diagnostic status. Secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression, functional impairment, catastrophic cognitions, fear of sensations and body vigilance. At post-treatment, both active conditions showed superior outcomes regarding PD and associated symptoms (guided ICBT vs. WL: d = 1.04-1.36; unguided ICBT vs. WL: d = 0.70-1.06). At post-treatment, the two active conditions did not differ significantly in self-reported symptom reduction (d = 0.21-0.54, all ps > 0.05), but the guided treatment was superior to the unguided treatment in terms of diagnostic status (χ 2 (1) = 13.15, p < 0.01). Treatment gains were maintained at successive follow-ups and the guided treatment became superior to the unguided treatment at 6 months follow-up (d = 0.72-1.05, all ps < 0.05).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.03.009

Cites

65 of 65 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

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ciuca, A. M., Berger, T., Crişan, L. G., & Miclea, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Babeș-Bolyai University (RO)
Corresponding author
Ciuca, Amalia M.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
56
Pages
43-55
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794937024
Cited by
58
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Scientific Exchange Programme NMS
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
panic disorder, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, therapist guidance, catastrophic cognitions, body vigilance, depression, functional disability, maintenance therapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self Care, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Panic Disorder, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Young Adult, Self Report

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