Cited by 42Sleep and related disordersMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Reporting of adverse events in cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia: A systematic examination of randomised controlled trials

Condon, Heather E., Maurer, Leonie F., Kyle, Simon D.·2021·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Adverse events are undesirable events that can occur during medical or psychological treatment. There has been limited attention to adverse events in psychological treatment trials relative to pharmacotherapy trials. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBTI) is the first line treatment for insomnia but studies have reported potential negative effects during acute implementation. This review aimed to understand the extent to which adverse events are monitored for and reported in the CBTI trial literature. Ninety-nine randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion, with findings showing that 32.3% (n = 32) of studies addressed adverse events in some way, while only 7.1% (n = 7) of studies met all criteria for adequate reporting of adverse events. For studies that reported on adverse events by group, there did not appear to be consistent differences between trial arms, however the limited evidence-base coupled with marked heterogeneity in monitoring and reporting makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions at this time. We outline recommendations for the field aimed at improving prospective monitoring and reporting of adverse events in psychological/behavioural treatment trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101412

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • A recent systematic review of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia found that only 32.3% of studies addressed adverse events and 7.1% met criteria for adequate reporting.

    “a recent systematic review reporting on adverse events in cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, which found that only 32.3% of studies addressed adverse events in any way, with an even smaller 7.1% of studies meeting criteria for adequate reporting of adverse events (Condon et al., 2021).”

    From Systematic review of the safety of mindfulness-based interventions for psychosis (2024) · cites this paper as Condon et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Condon, H. E., Maurer, L. F., & Kyle, S. D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Kyle, Simon D.
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
56
Pages
101412
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088835659
Cited by
42
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, adverse events, adverse event reporting, adverse event monitoring, insomnia treatment, reporting quality, clinical trial design
MeSH terms
Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Prospective Studies, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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