Cited by 207Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSleep and related disorders

A meta-analytic review of cognitive processing therapy for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder

Open access
Asmundson, Gordon J. G., Thorisdottir, Audur S., Roden-Foreman, Jacob W., Baird, Scarlett O., Witcraft, Sara M., Stein, Aliza T., Smits, Jasper A. J., Powers, Mark B·2019·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Two prior meta-analyses of studies are available but used approaches that limit conclusions that can be drawn regarding the impact of CPT on PTSD outcomes. The current meta-analysis reviewed outcomes of trials that tested the efficacy of CPT for PTSD in adults and evaluated potential moderators of outcomes. All published trials comparing CPT against an inactive control condition (i.e. psychological placebo or wait-list) or other active treatment for PTSD in adults were included, resulting in 11 studies with a total of 1130 participants. CPT outperformed inactive control conditions on PTSD outcome measures at posttreatment (mean Hedges' g = 1.24) and follow-up (mean Hedges' g = 0.90). The average CPT-treated participant fared better than 89% of those in inactive control conditions at posttreatment and 82% at follow-up. Results also showed that CPT outperformed inactive control conditions on non-PTSD outcome measures at posttreatment and follow-up and that CPT outperformed other active treatments at posttreatment but not at follow-up. Effect sizes of CPT on PTSD symptoms were not significantly moderated by participant age, number of treatment sessions, total sample size, length of follow-up, or group versus individual treatment; but, older studies had larger effect sizes and percent female sex moderated the effect of CPT on non-PTSD outcomes. These meta-analytic findings indicate that CPT is an effective PTSD treatment with lasting benefits across a range of outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16506073.2018.1522371

Cites

50 of 50 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
Asmundson, G. J. G., Thorisdottir, A. S., Roden-Foreman, J. W., Baird, S. O., Witcraft, S. M., Stein, A. T., Smits, J. A. J., & Powers, M. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Regina (CA)
  • Baylor University Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
Asmundson, Gordon J. G.
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2018-10-18
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W2897437472
Cited by
207
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QSpace (Queen's University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
cognitive processing therapy, post-traumatic stress disorder, treatment moderators, sex differences in treatment response
MeSH terms
Humans, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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