Meta‐Analysis of Computer‐Aided Psychotherapy: Problems and Partial Solutions
Open accessAbstract
Meta-analysis can be valuable if it heeds its originators' caution that intimate communing with the data is essential. A critique of the authors' own meta-analysis shows that the danger of overly broad conclusions could be reduced by attention to specificities and awareness of potentially hidden sources of variance. Conclusions from even good meta-analyses are best placed in perspective, along with naturalistic reviews, open studies, and even anecdotes to yield a fair picture of what computer-aided psychotherapy or any other treatment can achieve under varying conditions. The most realistic picture comes from zooming in and out and melding meta-analyses with further types of evidence.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Marks, I. M., Cuijpers, P., Cavanagh, K., van Straten, A., Gega, L., & Andersson, G.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Linköping University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Marks, Isaac M.
- Venue
- Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 83-90
- ISSN
- 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
- 1651-2316
- OpenAlex
- W2067920266
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.vu.nl
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- meta-analysis critique, sources of variation, treatment effectiveness, anecdotal evidence, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome
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
