Cited by 690Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Cognitive therapy versus medication for depression: treatment outcomes and neural mechanisms

Open access
DeRubeis, Robert J., Siegle, Greg J., Hollon, Steven D.·2008·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

Depression is one of the most prevalent and debilitating of the psychiatric disorders. Studies have shown that cognitive therapy is as efficacious as antidepressant medication at treating depression, and it seems to reduce the risk of relapse even after its discontinuation. Cognitive therapy and antidepressant medication probably engage some similar neural mechanisms, as well as mechanisms that are distinctive to each. A precise specification of these mechanisms might one day be used to guide treatment selection and improve outcomes.

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 · 10.1038/nrn2345

Cites

122 of 122 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?

  • Pharmacological agents used to treat anxiety disorders (benzodiazepines, clonidine, propranolol, SSRIs, and dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) are thought to inhibit the amygdala and other limbic structures by acting on alpha, beta, GABA, or serotonin receptors in the amygdala, hypothalamus, or PAG.

    “Pharmacological agents used to treat anxiety disorders—benzodiazepines, clonidine, propranolol, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and dual serotonin and norephinephrine reuptake inhibitors—are thought to inhibit the amygdala and other limbic structures by acting on alpha, beta, GABA, or serotonin receptors in the amygdala, hypothalamus, or PAG.159–162”

    From Fear and the Defense Cascade (2015) · cites this paper as [160]

    In “Effects of treatment on brain circuitry” (page not provided), the paper says SSRIs could inhibit the amygdala and other ventral limbic regions, and discusses possible inhibitory effects of SSRIs and SNRIs. It addresses antidepressant treatment for depression, not the claimed mechanism for anxiety drugs as a group; the supplied passages do not support the claims about benzodiazepines, clonidine, propranolol, or the specified receptors and sites. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Discontinuation of medication, with removal of limbic inhibition, will potentially leave the individual prone to strong limbic reactivity to new stressors without long-term changes in information processing.

    “Subsequent discontinuation of medication—and with it, the removal of limbic inhibition—will potentially leave the individual prone to experiencing strong limbic reactivity to new stressors, without having brought about any long-term changes in information processing.160”

    From Fear and the Defense Cascade (2015) · cites this paper as [160]

    In “Effects of treatment on brain circuitry” (page unavailable), the paper proposes that stopping antidepressant medication could leave a person vulnerable to strong reactions to new stressors. But “Antidepressant medication” says the long-term cognitive effects have not been examined, and “Conclusions and future directions” allows that medication might eventually increase reliance on prefrontal function. The asserted absence of long-term changes in information processing is therefore not established. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • When traumatic memories are successfully processed, the physiological markers of arousal decrease.

    “When traumatic memories are successfully processed, the physiological markers of arousal likewise decrease.160,182–186”

    From Fear and the Defense Cascade (2015) · cites this paper as [160]

    The Effects of treatment on brain circuitry section reports decreased amygdala activity in response to emotional information after cognitive therapy for depression and describes normalized activity after successful therapy for specific phobia. It does not establish that processing traumatic memories reduces physiological markers of arousal; both the condition and the measures differ from those in the claim. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PFC function is enhanced during CBT interventions.

    “PFC function has been found to be enhanced during CBT interventions.160,182”

    From Fear and the Defense Cascade (2015) · cites this paper as [160]

  • Memories of past trauma can activate the body's arousal systems, resulting in arousal, the precondition of activating the defense cascade.

    “Since memories of past trauma can activate the body’s arousal systems—resulting in arousal, the precondition of activating the defense cascade”

    From Fear and the Defense Cascade (2015) · cites this paper as [160]

    The ‘Increased or sustained amygdala activity’ section links the amygdala to emotional reactions and associations in memory, while ‘Conclusions and future directions’ mentions childhood trauma as a treatment-outcome variable. Neither passage says that memories of trauma activate bodily arousal systems or that arousal is a precondition for a defense cascade; searches for trauma memories, physiological arousal, and defensive responses found no passage addressing that sequence. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
DeRubeis, R. J., Siegle, G. J., & Hollon, S. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
DeRubeis, Robert J.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2008-09-11
Volume
9
Issue
10
Pages
788-796
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W2066231855
Cited by
690
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 44
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH082998, MH 55875, K02MH082998, MH 074807, MH60998, R01MH060713, R01MH060998, MH 50129, MH060713, K02MH001697, MH 01697, R10MH055875, R01MH074807)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive therapy, antidepressants, depression, relapse prevention, treatment selection
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Brain, Cognition, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Limbic System, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, Secondary Prevention

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