Cited by 282Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Imagery rescripting as a clinical intervention for aversive memories: A meta-analysis

Open access
Morina, Nexhmedin, Lancee, Jaap, Arntz, Arnoud·2017·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives Literature suggests that imagery rescripting (ImRs) is an effective psychological intervention.Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of ImRs for psychological complaints that are associated with aversive memories. Relevant publications were collected from the databases Medline, PsychInfo, and Web of Science.Results The search identified 19 trials (including seven randomized controlled trials) with 363 adult patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (eight trials), social anxiety disorder (six trials), body dysmorphic disorder (two trials), major depression (one trial), bulimia nervosa (one trial), or obsessive compulsive disorder (one trial). ImRs was administered over a mean of 4.5 sessions (range, 1-16). Effect size estimates suggest that ImRs is largely effective in reducing symptoms from pretreatment to posttreatment and follow-up in the overall sample (Hedges' g = 1.22 and 1.79, respectively). The comparison of ImRs to passive treatment conditions resulted in a large effect size (g = 0.90) at posttreatment. Finally, the effects of ImRs on comorbid depression, aversive imagery, and encapsulated beliefs were also large.Limitations Most of the analyses involved pre-post comparisons and the findings are limited by the small number of randomized controlled trials.Conclusions Our findings indicate that ImRs is a promising intervention for psychological complaints related to aversive memories, with large effects obtained in a small number of session.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.11.003

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 282

Authors
Morina, N., Lancee, J., & Arntz, A.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
55
Pages
6-15
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2557111467
Cited by
282
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 5
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
imagery rescripting, aversive memory, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, major depressive disorder, bulimia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder, comorbid depression, psychological intervention
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Databases, Bibliographic, Treatment Outcome, Imagery, Psychotherapy

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