The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing the efficacy of benzodiazepines and serotonergic anti-depressants for adults with generalized anxiety disorder: a meta-analytic review
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a common form of anxiety disorder. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and benzodiazepines (BZs) are the most commonly prescribed medications for GAD, but little is known about the relative efficacy of these pharmacological treatments. Areas covered: This study provides a meta-analytic review of the efficacy of these medications in the treatment of adults with GAD. A comprehensive literature search yielded 54 articles reporting 56 unique studies with 12,655 participants treated with either pill placebo (6,191 participants), SSRIs (16 trials, 2,712 participants), SNRIs (17 trials, 2,603 participants), or BZs (23 trials, 1,149 participants). The overall combined effect size was modest to moderate (Hedges' g = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Effect sizes decreased significantly over time. SSRIs (Hedges' g = 0.33) and SNRIs (Hedges' g = 0.36) demonstrated significantly lower effect sizes than BZs (Hedges' g = 0.50). These findings were not due to differences in treatment length or publication year. Expert opinion: The results of this study suggest that the most common forms of pharmacotherapy for adult GAD are moderately effective, with BZs being the most effective drug.
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
“In contrast, BDZs demonstrate efficacy for the treatment of GAD (Gomez, Barthel, & Hofmann, 2018) and are still and even increasingly prescribed (Agarwal & Landon, 2019;Bachhuber, Hennessy, Cunningham, & Starrels, 2016).”
From Novel pharmacological targets in drug development for the treatment of anxiety and anxiety-related disorders (2019) · cites this paper as Gomez, Barthel, & Hofmann, 2018
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
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
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
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“To address the file drawer problem, a classic fail-safe N analysis was conducted [33,34].”
MethodMeta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
A Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis
Orwin, R. G. (1983) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164923 · Cited by 2,064 · cited 2×
“N test [33] indicated that 354 trials with an effect size of zerowould be needed to yield an overall trivial effect of treatment over”
MethodPlacebo Response in Studies of Major Depression: Variable, Substantial, and Growing
Walsh, B. T., Seidman, S. N., Sysko, R., & Gould, M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.14.1840 · Cited by 1,109
Maier, W., Buller, R., Philipp, M., & Heuser, I. (1988) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/0165-0327(88)90072-9 · Cited by 1,044 · cited 7×
“Using the Trim and Fill method [35], we determined that 17 studieswould need to fall to the left of themean (i.e. have an effect size smaller than the mean) and 0 studies would need to fall to the right of the mean (i.e. have an effect size larger than TX: treatment; HARS: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; BZ: benzodiaze…”
BackgroundInfluentialCarpenter, J. K., Andrews, L. A., Witcraft, S. M., Powers, M. B., Smits, J. A. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2018) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22728 · Cited by 846 · cited 1×
“97) with low to moderate heterogeneity [44,45].”
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Longo LP, 2000, Am Fam Physician, 61, 2121
- Hidalgo RB, 2010, Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6, 13
- Stewart SA, 2005, J Clin Psychiatry, 66, 9
- Borenstein M, 1999, Comprehensive meta-analysis: A computer program for research
- Fontaine R, 1984, Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 20, 126
- Koponen H, 2007, J Clin Psychiatry, 9, 100
- Lenox-Smith A, 2003, Br J Gen Pract, 53, 772
- Wu WY, 2011, Chin Med J (Engl), 124, 3260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Penninx, B. W., Pine, D. S., Holmes, E. A., & Reif, A. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00359-7 · Cited by 740
Szuhany, K. L., & Simon, N. M. (2022) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.22744 · Cited by 541
Leichsenring, F., Steinert, C., Rabung, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20941 · Cited by 485
Pharmacotherapy of Anxiety Disorders: Current and Emerging Treatment Options
Garakani, A., Murrough, J. W., Freire, R. C., Thom, R. P., Larkin, K., Buono, F. D., & Iosifescu, D. V. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.595584 · Cited by 440
The prefrontal cortex, pathological anxiety, and anxiety disorders
Kenwood, M. M., Kalin, N. H., & Barbas, H. (2021) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-021-01109-z · Cited by 379
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomez, A. F., Barthel, A. L., & Hofmann, S. G.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hofmann, Stefan G.
- ORCID
- Hofmann, Stefan G.
- Venue
- Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-05-24
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 883-894
- ISSN
- 1465-6566 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-7666
- PMC
- PMC6097846
- OpenAlex
- W2804266260
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 102
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH099311)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- generalized anxiety disorder, benzodiazepines, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, pharmacotherapy efficacy, antidepressant comparison, placebo response, adults
- MeSH terms
- Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors, Anxiety Disorders, Benzodiazepines, Humans, Anti-Anxiety Agents, Databases, Factual, Treatment Outcome, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
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
