Cited by 258Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Open access
Fodor, Liviu A, Georgescu, Raluca, Cuijpers, Pim, Szamoskozi, Ştefan, David, Daniel, Furukawa, Toshiaki A, Cristea, Ioana A·2020·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Cognitive bias modification (CBM) therapies, including attention bias modification, interpretation bias modification, or approach and avoidance training, are prototypical examples of mechanistically derived treatments, but their effectiveness is contentious. We aimed to assess the relative effectiveness of various CBM interventions for anxious and depressive symptomatology.Methods For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register from database inception up until Feb 7, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials of CBM versus control conditions or other forms of CBM for adults aged 18 years and older with clinical or subclinical anxiety or depression measured with a diagnostic interview or a validated clinical scale. We excluded studies comparing CBM with a non-CBM active intervention. Two researchers independently selected studies and evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Primary outcomes encompassed anxiety and depressive symptoms measured with validated clinical scales. We computed standardised mean differences (SMDs) with a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018086113.Findings From 2125 records we selected 85 trials, 65 (n=3897) on anxiety and 20 (n=1116) on depression. In a well connected network of anxiety trials, interpretation bias modification outperformed waitlist (SMD -0·55, 95% CI -0·91 to -0·19) and sham training (SMD -0·30, -0·50 to -0·10) for the primary outcome. Attention bias modification showed benefits only in post-hoc sensitivity analyses excluding post-traumatic stress disorder trials. Prediction intervals for all findings were large, including an SMD of 0. Networks of depression trials displayed evidence of inconsistency. Only four randomised controlled trials had low risk of bias on all six domains assessed.Interpretation CBM interventions showed consistent but small benefits; however heterogeneity and risk of bias undermine the reliability of these findings. Larger, definitive trials for interpretation bias modification for anxiety might be warranted, but insufficient evidence precludes conclusions for depression.Funding Romanian Ministry of Research and Innovation, The National Council for Scientific Research-The Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30130-9

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 suggests antidepressant medicine-specifically fluoxetine-alone or in combination with CBT is the most efficacious treatment in moderate-to-severe depressive disorder, but the quality of the evidence is low.

    “A recent systematic review 518 suggests antidepressant medicine-specifically fluoxetine- alone or in combination with CBT is the most efficacious treatment in moderate-to-severe depressive disorder. However, the quality of the evidence is low.”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fodor, L. A., Georgescu, R., Cuijpers, P., Szamoskozi, Ş., David, D., Furukawa, T. A., & Cristea, I. A.
Affiliations
  • Babeș-Bolyai University (RO)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
Corresponding author
Cristea, Ioana A
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
506-514
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3028515698
Cited by
258
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 8
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
  • Unitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii (PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2016-1054)
  • Meso Scale Diagnostics
  • Conseil National de la Recherche Scientifique
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, attentional bias modification, interpretation bias modification, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, depression, anxiety, treatment efficacy, risk of bias, heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Bias, Case-Control Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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