The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Time for united action on depression: a Lancet–World Psychiatric Association Commission (2022) · cites this paper as [518]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., & Ades, A. E. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3767 · Cited by 2,521
Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA
Chaimani, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavridis, D., Spyridonos, P., & Salanti, G. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654 · Cited by 2,473
Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies
Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Barrett, J. K., Lu, G., Ades, A. E., & White, I. R. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1044 · Cited by 2,098
White, I. R., Barrett, J. K., Jackson, D., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1045 · Cited by 1,114
(2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · Cited by 985
Andrews, G., Basu, A., Cuijpers, P., Craske, M. G., McEvoy, P., English, C. L., & Newby, J. M. (2018) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.01.001 · Cited by 922
Self-citationLamers, F., van Oppen, P., Comijs, H. C., Smit, J. H., Spinhoven, P., van Balkom, A. J. L. M., Nolen, W. A., Zitman, F. G., Beekman, A. T. F., & Penninx, B. W. J. H. (2011) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.10m06176blu · Cited by 913
A meta-analysis of the effect of cognitive bias modification on anxiety and depression
Hallion, L. S., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0024355 · Cited by 891
White, I. R. (2015) · The Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x1501500403 · Cited by 789
Cognitive Bias Modification Approaches to Anxiety
MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143052 · Cited by 664
The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on psychological treatments research in tomorrow's science
Holmes, E. A., Ghaderi, A., Harmer, C. J., Ramchandani, P. G., Cuijpers, P., Morrison, A. P., Roiser, J. P., Bockting, C. L. H., O'Connor, R. C., Shafran, R., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(17)30513-8 · Cited by 624
Self-citationEvaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions
Veroniki, A. A., Vasiliadis, H. S., Higgins, J. P., & Salanti, G. (2013) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dys222 · Cited by 576
Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis
Cristea, I. A., Kok, R. N., & Cuijpers, P. (2015) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.114.146761 · Cited by 553
Self-citationMultivariate Random-effects Meta-regression: Updates to Mvmeta
White, I. R. (2011) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x1101100206 · Cited by 400
Savović, J., Turner, R. M., Mawdsley, D., Jones, H. E., Beynon, R., Higgins, J. P. T., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2018) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwx344 · Cited by 382
Attention bias modification for social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Heeren, A., Mogoașe, C., Philippot, P., & McNally, R. J. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.001 · Cited by 312
Nikolakopoulou, A., White, I. R., & Salanti, G. (2020) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315119403-10 · Cited by 308
Assessing key assumptions of network meta‐analysis: a review of methods
Donegan, S., Williamson, P. R., D’Alessandro, U., & Smith, C. T. (2013) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1085 · Cited by 275
Menne-Lothmann, C., Viechtbauer, W., Höhn, P., Kasanova, Z., Haller, S. P., Drukker, M., van Os, J., Wichers, M., & Lau, J. Y. F. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100925 · Cited by 235
Network meta-analyses should be the highest level of evidence in treatment guidelines
Leucht, S., Chaimani, A., Cipriani, A. S., Davis, J. M., Furukawa, T. A., & Salanti, G. (2016) · European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s00406-016-0715-4 · Cited by 202
Self-citationCristea, I. A., Kok, R. N., & Cuijpers, P. J. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162226 · Cited by 200
Self-citationBadura-Brack, A. S., Naim, R., Ryan, T. J., Levy, O., Abend, R., Khanna, M. M., McDermott, T. J., Pine, D. S., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2015) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14121578 · Cited by 185
Linetzky, M., Pergamin-Hight, L., Pine, D. S., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2015) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22344 · Cited by 185
Price, R. B., Wallace, M., Kuckertz, J. M., Amir, N., Graur, S., Cummings, L., Popa, P., Carlbring, P., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2016) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.09.009 · Cited by 144
Linetzky, M., Pergamin‐Hight, L., Pine, D. S., & Bar‐Haim, Y. (2017) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22690 · Cited by 130
Boettcher, J., Leek, L., Matson, L., Holmes, E. A., Browning, M., MacLeod, C., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071760 · Cited by 109
Network Meta-Analysis using Frequentist Methods
Rücker, G., Schwarzer, G., Krahn, U., & König, J. (2015) · Cited by 106
Effects of cognitive bias modification on social anxiety: A meta-analysis
Liu, H., Li, X., Han, B., & Liu, X. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175107 · Cited by 106
Sakaluk, J. K., Williams, A. J., Kilshaw, R. E., & Rhyner, K. T. (2019) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000421 · Cited by 95
Debray, T. P. A., Schuit, E., Efthimiou, O., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Salanti, G., Moons, K. G. M., & Workpackage, O. B. O. G. (2016) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280216660741 · Cited by 85
Blackwell, S., Woud, M., & MacLeod, C. (2017) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2017.41 · Cited by 73
Cristea, I. A. (2019) · Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences · doi:10.1017/s2045796018000665 · Cited by 47
Self-citationAmad, A., Jardri, R., Rousseau, C., Larochelle, Y., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Naudet, F. (2019) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000502805 · Cited by 35
Edwards, C. B., Portnow, S., Namaky, N., & Teachman, B. (2018) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-018-9922-9 · Cited by 8
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Time for united action on depression: a Lancet–World Psychiatric Association Commission
Herrman, H., Patel, V., Kieling, C., Berk, M., Buchweitz, C., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., Kessler, R. C., Kohrt, B. A., Maj, M., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02141-3 · Cited by 1,104
Self-citationThe role of attention control in complex real-world tasks
Draheim, C., Pak, R., Draheim, A. A., & Engle, R. W. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-021-02052-2 · Cited by 172
Neurobiology and systems biology of stress resilience
Kalisch, R., Russo, S. J., & Müller, M. B. (2024) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00042.2023 · Cited by 149
Clauss, K. E., Gorday, J. Y., & Bardeen, J. R. (2022) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102142 · Cited by 121
Martinelli, A., Grüll, J., & Baum, C. (2022) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2022.104180 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
