The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis examined 30 randomized controlled trials (32 study sites; 35 study arms) that tested the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for alcohol or other drug use disorders. The study aim was to provide estimates of efficacy against three levels of experimental contrast (i.e., minimal [k = 5]; nonspecific therapy [k = 11]; specific therapy [k = 19]) for consumption frequency and quantity outcomes at early (1 to 6 months [kes = 41]) and late (8+ months [kes = 26]) follow-up time points. When pooled effect sizes were statistically heterogeneous, study-level moderators were examined. METHOD: The inverse-variance weighted effect size was calculated for each study and pooled under random effects assumptions. Sensitivity analyses included tests of heterogeneity, study influence, and publication bias. RESULTS: CBT in contrast to minimal treatment showed a moderate and significant effect size that was consistent across outcome type and follow-up. When CBT was contrasted with a nonspecific therapy or treatment as usual, treatment effect was statistically significant for consumption frequency and quantity at early, but not late, follow-up. CBT effects in contrast to a specific therapy were consistently nonsignificant across outcomes and follow-up time points. Of 10 pooled effect sizes examined, two showed moderate heterogeneity, but multivariate analyses revealed few systematic predictors of between-study variance. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis shows that CBT is more effective than a no treatment, minimal treatment, or nonspecific control. Consistent with findings on other evidence-based therapies, CBT did not show superior efficacy in contrast to another specific modality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 25 Not checked yet · 13 Own interpretation · 10 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CBT effects in contrast to a specific therapy were consistently non-significant across outcomes and follow-up time points.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Results.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When CBT was contrasted with a non-specific therapy or treatment as usual, treatment effect was statistically significant for consumption frequency and quantity at early, but not late, follow-up.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Results.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of ten pooled effect sizes examined, two showed moderate heterogeneity, but multivariate analyses revealed few systematic predictors of between-study variance.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Results.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When CBT was contrasted with a non-specific therapy or treatment as usual, treatment effect was statistically significant for consumption frequency and quantity at early, but not late, follow-up.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Results.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of ten pooled effect sizes examined, two showed moderate heterogeneity, but multivariate analyses revealed few systematic predictors of between-study variance.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Results.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and only one study provided late follow-up quantity data (Kivlahan et al., 1990)”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > CBT Effect by Contrast Type, Outcome Type, and Follow-up Time Point
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kivlahan et al., 1990
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted above, this type of contrast characterized the majority of studies reviewed”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of findings held for minimal and non-specific therapy contrasts”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although quantity outcomes (kes = 19) were reported less consistently than frequency outcomes (kes = 47)”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, reporting of therapist training (44%), supervision frequency and/or methods (70%), and fidelity (7%) was variable in the sample of studies.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final meta-analytic sample was comprised of K = 30 studies, with 32 study sites (i.e., two studies provided two sites each, Project MATCH Research Group, 1997; McAuliffe, 1990), and a total of 5,398 participants.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Literature Search
plainn = 5,398- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis examined 30 randomized controlled trials (32 study sites; 35 study arms) that tested the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for alcohol or other drug use disorders (AUD/SUD).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Objective.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CBT in contrast to minimal treatment showed a moderate and significant effect size that was consistent across outcome type and follow-up.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Results.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“two out of 10 pooled effect sizes were determined to have sufficient systematic heterogeneity to warrant moderator analyses. Of these two estimates (I2 range = 45 – 59%), only one subgroup also contained a sufficient k number of studies to provide variability in the covariates examined.”
- Also stated in: § Limitations · plain
“In this study, two of 10 subgroup effect sizes showed greater than 40% systematics heterogeneity, and one of these two subgroups had a sufficient number of studies to allow multivariate moderator analysis.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneous Pooled Effect Sizes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Limitations · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with a number of evidence-based addictions therapies, CBT effect sizes were small to non-significant in contrast to non-specific and specific therapies, respectively.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pooled effect size for frequency outcomes at early follow-up was small and statistically significant (g = .18: 95% CI = .02, .35, p = .04; tau2 = .03, Q > .05, I2 = 45%; k = 9)6 with a success rate roughly 8% higher than the median within the contrast condition.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > CBT Effect by Contrast Type, Outcome Type, and Follow-up Time Point
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the derived effect sizes showed minimal heterogeneity, and when heterogeneity was observed, moderator analyses revealed few significant moderating factors possibly due to low statistical power.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion > Limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They reported a small overall effect size (r = .14, p < .05), and suggested relapse prevention was more effective for alcohol use disorder than for other substances and when delivered in combination with a pharmacological intervention.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Irvin and colleagues (1999)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current meta-analysis shows that CBT is more effective than a no treatment, minimal treatment, or non-specific control.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Conclusions.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In comparison, effects for non-specific contrasts (i.e., a passive, but time-matched or usual care control condition; e.g., treatment as usual, supportive therapy, drug counseling) and specific contrasts (i.e., another manualized therapy condition; e.g., Motivational Interviewing, Contingency Management) were small and more common in the literature (g =.15, p < .005, k = 32/53; g =.11, p < .05, k”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Magill & Ray, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These are established elements of community-based care and confer benefit in their own right (SAMHSA, 2017).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites SAMHSA, 2017
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In comparison, effects for non-specific contrasts (i.e., a passive, but time-matched or usual care control condition; e.g., treatment as usual, supportive therapy, drug counseling) and specific contrasts (i.e., another manualized therapy condition; e.g., Motivational Interviewing, Contingency Management) were small and more common in the literature (g =.15, p < .005, k = 32/53; g =.11, p < .05, k”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Magill & Ray, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cognitive-behavioral emphasis on relapse prevention suggests this is a treatment well-suited to abstinence maintenance and long-term functioning.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, to test for potential publication bias, the relationship between error and effect size was assessed using rank correlation (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994) and graphical methods (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Data Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Begg & Mazumdar, 1994
- Not checked yetcites Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but caution is warranted due to the relatively smaller number of primary studies contributing quantity outcome effect estimates.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sensitivity analyses included tests of heterogeneity, study influence, and publication bias.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Method.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Abstract screening occurred by two raters in ABSTRKR (Wallace, Small, Brodley, Lau, & Trikalinos, 2012).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Literature Search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They reported a small overall effect size (r = .14, p < .05), and suggested relapse prevention was more effective for alcohol use disorder than for other substances and when delivered in combination with a pharmacological intervention.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Irvin and colleagues (1999)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In 2009, Magill and Ray followed up this work with a meta-analysis of 53 experimental CBT studies, reporting a similar overall effect size (g = .15, p < .005), although findings related to superior effects with alcohol use disorder were not replicated.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Magill & Ray, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Trimmed estimates with influential studies removed (Baujat, Mahé, Pignon, & Hill, 2002) were also provided.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Data Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baujat, Mahé, Pignon, & Hill, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this meta-analysis, we selected two types of treatment outcomes a priori. These were alcohol or other drug use frequency and quantity.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“study-level risk-of-bias (Higgins et al., 2011).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Primary Study Characteristic Variables
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Higgins et al., 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Further, qualitative reviews have concluded that CBT is more effective than no treatment, but have reported mixed results on key questions such as efficacy over another evidence-based therapy (Longabaugh & Morgenstern, 1999), effect variability by primary drug type (Mastroleo & Monti, 2013; McHugh, Hearon, & Otto, 2010), and the optimal timing of intervention effects (Carroll & Onken, 2005).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mastroleo & Monti, 2013
- Not checked yetcites McHugh, Hearon, & Otto, 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Figure 1 provides a visual representation of study inclusion for the present report on stand-alone CBT efficacy with adult AUD/SUD; the figure follows QUORUM guidelines (Moher et al., 1999).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Literature Search
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moher et al., 1999
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Further, optimal outcomes could vary as a function of intervention modality, including specific ingredients and purported mechanisms of action (Donovan et al., 2012).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion > Limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Donovan et al., 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Further, qualitative reviews have concluded that CBT is more effective than no treatment, but have reported mixed results on key questions such as efficacy over another evidence-based therapy (Longabaugh & Morgenstern, 1999), effect variability by primary drug type (Mastroleo & Monti, 2013; McHugh, Hearon, & Otto, 2010), and the optimal timing of intervention effects (Carroll & Onken, 2005).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carroll & Onken, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conducted sensitivity analyses throughout data analysis and considered heterogeneity and moderator analyses as two primary methods for examining effect size validity.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Data Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trade-off was that some effect estimates were comprised of a small number of primary studies, which could result in underpowered moderator analysis if heterogeneity was present in these pooled effects.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses of CBT in contrast to a non-specific therapy showed three influential studies that, when removed, the overall effect size became non-significant (gtrimmed ~ .07 to .26).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > CBT Effect by Contrast Type, Outcome Type, and Follow-up Time Point
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses of CBT in contrast to another specific therapy showed no influential studies and no evidence of publication bias (Figure 4; τ = .00, p = .500).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > CBT Effect by Contrast Type, Outcome Type, and Follow-up Time Point
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, the effect of CBT over no treatment was large (g =.79, p < .005), but this type of contrast was rare (k = 6/53).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Magill & Ray, 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further, qualitative reviews have concluded that CBT is more effective than no treatment, but have reported mixed results on key questions such as efficacy over another evidence-based therapy (Longabaugh & Morgenstern, 1999), effect variability by primary drug type (Mastroleo & Monti, 2013; McHugh, Hearon, & Otto, 2010), and the optimal timing of intervention effects (Carroll & Onken, 2005).”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Longabaugh & Morgenstern, 1999
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“They reported a small overall effect size (r = .14, p < .05), and suggested relapse prevention was more effective for alcohol use disorder than for other substances and when delivered in combination with a pharmacological intervention.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Irvin and colleagues (1999)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses of alcohol or other drug treatments generally show effect sizes in the small to moderate range”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bertholet, Daeppen, Wietlisbach, Fleming, & Burnand, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Lundahl, Kunz, Brownell, Tollefson, & Burke, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Prendergast et al., 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data were extracted in two independent passes conducted by trained raters (i.e., fourth and fifth authors), and showed a between-rater agreement rate of 95.3%.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Method > Primary Study Characteristic Variables
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
No CBT meta-analysis across substances or for individual substances had been conducted since Magill and Ray (2009).
“To our knowledge, this was the last CBT meta-analysis across substances, or for individual substances, conducted to date.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Small sample and small effect studies characterize unpublished research.
“Here, small sample/small effect studies are assumed to characterize unpublished research, resulting in a significant and negative relationship, thus an asymmetrical funnel plot, when publication bias is present.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The population effect size has an assumed distribution with both systematic and random sources of variability.
“In this approach, there is an assumed distribution for the population effect size with both systematic and random sources of variability (Hedges & Vevea, 1998).”
The paper relies on this without support.
This is the first meta-analysis of CBT efficacy for adults with alcohol and other drug use disorders conducted in 10 years.
“To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis of CBT efficacy for adults with alcohol and other drug use disorders conducted in 10 years, despite ongoing research and utilization of the CBT approach.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Studies using a no treatment or minimal treatment contrast provide the optimal conditions for examining the durability of treatment effect.
“Studies using a no treatment or a minimal treatment contrast provide the optimal conditions for examining the durability of treatment effect.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited evidence for differential efficacy between specific therapies (the dodo bird effect).
“despite the known phenomenon of limited evidence for differential efficacy between specific therapies (i.e., the dodo bird effect).”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Evidence-based strategies, including contingency management (CM), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), motivational interviewing (MI), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and family-based interventions, have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing substance use and enhancing treatment outcomes”
From Navigating the Complex Intersection of Substance Use and Psychiatric Disorders: A Comprehensive Review (2024) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, when contrasted with any spe cific therapy, CBT's effects were consistently non- significant a- cross outcomes and follow- up time points 235 .”
From Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention (2023) · cites this paper as [235]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Compared to minimal treatment (waitlist, brief psychoeducation), CBT demonstrated a moderate and significant effect size consistently across outcome types and follow-up periods.”
From A Narrative Review of Current and Emerging Trends in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [120]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Contrast with non-specific therapy (supportive therapy, drug counseling) showed significant effects on consumption frequency and quantity at early follow-up, but not at late follow-up.”
From A Narrative Review of Current and Emerging Trends in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [120]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, CBT effects compared to specific therapy (motivational interviewing, contingency management) were consistently non-significant across outcomes and follow-up times”
From A Narrative Review of Current and Emerging Trends in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [120]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > CBT Effect by Contrast Type, Outcome Type, and Follow-up Time Point
“the pooled effect size for frequency outcomes was g = .58 (95% CI = .15, 1.01, p = .009; tau2 = .11, Q > .05, I2 = 59%; k = 4) at early follow-up”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
“Studies using a no treatment or a minimal treatment contrast provide the optimal conditions for examining the durability of treatment effect. In these cases, studies reporting frequency outcomes demonstrated that CBT effects were quite durable with moderate effects at both early (k = 5) and late (k = 4) follow-ups.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
“In the present study, estimates of effect were sizable only among the seven studies contrasting CBT with a minimal comparison.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Objective.
“The study aim was to provide estimates of efficacy against three levels of experimental contrast (i.e., minimal [k = 5]; non-specific therapy [k = 11]; specific therapy [k = 19]) for consumption frequency and quantity outcomes at early (1 – 6 months [kes = 41]) and late (8+ months [kes = 26]) follow-up time points.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Results > CBT Effect by Contrast Type, Outcome Type, and Follow-up Time Point
“the pooled effect size for frequency outcomes was g = .58 (95% CI = .15, 1.01, p = .009; tau2 = .11, Q > .05, I2 = 59%; k = 4) at early follow-up and g = .44 (95% CI = .02, .86, p = .039; tau2 = .00, Q > .05, I2 = 0%; k = 2) at late follow-up.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
“In these cases, studies reporting frequency outcomes demonstrated that CBT effects were quite durable with moderate effects at both early (k = 5) and late (k = 4) follow-ups.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Abstract > Objective.
“early (1 – 6 months [kes = 41]) and late (8+ months [kes = 26]) follow-up time points.”
§ A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders: Treatment Efficacy by Contrast Condition > Discussion
“quantity outcomes (kes = 19) were reported less consistently than frequency outcomes (kes = 47)”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
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
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
SAUNDERS, J. B., AASLAND, O. G., BABOR, T. F., DE LA FUENTE, J. R., & GRANT, M. (1993) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x · Cited by 13,597
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses
Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 · Cited by 3,445
The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses
Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E. M., & Beck, A. T. (2006) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003 · Cited by 3,215
An Improved Diagnostic Evaluation Instrument for Substance Abuse Patients
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L. B., WOODY, G. E., & Brien, C. P. O. (1980) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006 · Cited by 3,163
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Volkow, N. D., & Blanco, C. (2023) · World psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.21073 · Cited by 503
Leichsenring, F., Steinert, C., Rabung, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20941 · Cited by 485
Ray, L. A., Meredith, L. R., Kiluk, B. D., Walthers, J., Carroll, K. M., & Magill, M. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8279 · Cited by 265
Self-citationHazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders
MacKillop, J. M., Agabio, R., Ewing, S. W. F., Heilig, M. A., Kelly, J. F., Leggio, L., Lingford-Hughes, A. R., Palmer, A. A., Parry, C. D. H., Ray, L. A., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-022-00406-1 · Cited by 251
Self-citationCulturally Responsive Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Ethnically Diverse Populations
Huey, S. J., Park, A. L., Galán, C. A., & Wang, C. X. (2023) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-072750 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Magill, M., Ray, L., Kiluk, B., Hoadley, A., Bernstein, M., Tonigan, J. S., & Carroll, K.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Yale University (US)
- University of New Mexico (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1093-1105
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- PMC
- PMC6856400
- OpenAlex
- W2980109357
- Semantic Scholar
- aede69e634a288213fe3b8142a863f778b2960f2
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 20
- FWCI
- 3.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA026006)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy, alcoholism, substance use disorders, treatment efficacy, drinking frequency, alcohol consumption quantity, evidence-based treatment
- MeSH terms
- Alcoholism, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Substance-Related Disorders
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
