Cited by 590Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Meta-analysis of comparative therapy outcome studies: a replication and refinement.

Shapiro, David A., Shapiro, Diana·1982·Psychological Bulletin

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.581

Cites

181 of 181 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Shapiro, D. A., & Shapiro, D.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1982
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
581-604
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2040742438
Cited by
590
References
179
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
meta-analysis, replication, treatment outcome comparison
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Mental Disorders, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Psychotherapy, Statistics 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