Cited by 644Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchMigration, Health and Trauma

Single session debriefing after psychological trauma: a meta-analysis

van Emmerik, Arnold AP, Kamphuis, Jan H, Hulsbosch, Alexander M, Emmelkamp, Paul MG·2002·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Despite conflicting research findings and uncertain efficacy, single session debriefing is standard clinical practice after traumatic events. We aimed to assess the efficacy of this intervention in prevention of chronic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and other disorders after trauma.Methods In a meta-analysis, we selected appropriate studies from databases (Medline Advanced, PsychINFO, and PubMed), the Journal of Traumatic Stress, and reference lists of articles and book chapters. Inclusion criteria were that single session debriefing had been done within 1 month after trauma, symptoms were assessed with widely accepted clinical outcome measures, and data from psychological assessments that had been done before (pretest data) and after (post-test data) interventions and were essential for calculation of effect sizes had been reported. We included seven studies in final analyses, in which there were five critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) interventions, three non-CISD interventions, and six no-intervention controls.Findings Non-CISD interventions and no intervention improved symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, but CISD did not improve symptoms (weighted mean effect sizes 0.65 [95% CI 0.14-1.16], 0.47 [0.28-0.66], and 0.13 [-0.29 to 0.55], respectively). CISD did not improve natural recovery from other trauma-related disorders (0.12 [-0.22 to 0.47]).Interpretation CISD and non-CISD interventions do not improve natural recovery from psychological trauma.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09897-5

Cites

36 of 36 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
van Emmerik, A. A., Kamphuis, J. H., Hulsbosch, A. M., & Emmelkamp, P. M.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-09
Volume
360
Issue
9335
Pages
766-771
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2107876006
Cited by
644
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 25
FWCI
5.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
Keywords
critical incident stress debriefing, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological trauma, trauma recovery, natural recovery, trauma-related disorders, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Counseling, Crisis Intervention, Female, Humans, Male, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Time Factors

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