Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
The current systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) on panic disorder and agoraphobia symptom severity. Twenty-seven studies were identified. Results from nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed that iCBT outperformed waiting list and information controls for panic ( g = 1.22) and agoraphobia ( g = .91) symptoms, but the quality of RCTs varied and heterogeneity was high. Results from three RCTs suggested iCBT may have similar outcomes to face-to-face CBT in reducing panic and agoraphobia symptoms. Within-group effect sizes between baseline and post-treatment were large for panic ( n = 29, g = 1.16) and medium for agoraphobia symptom severity ( n = 18, g = .73). Subgroup analyses of within-group pre/post treatment effect sizes showed larger within-group effect sizes for efficacy studies ( n = 15) compared to effectiveness studies ( n = 14) for panic severity ( g = 1.38 vs. g = .98) but not agoraphobia severity. There was no impact of program length, inclusion or arousal reduction techniques, or degree of clinician support. Within-group effects of iCBT suggest the reduction in panic and agoraphobia symptom severity is maintained at 3-6 month follow-up ( n = 12).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Our results are lower than the effect size for CBT for PD reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis (g = 1.22), where the control conditions were waitlist and information-based controls.
“However, our results are lower than the effect size for CBT for PD reported in a systematic review and meta‐analysis (g = 1.22), where the control conditions were waitlist and information‐based controls (Stech et al. 2020).”
From Internet‐Based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy With Interoceptive Exposure for Panic Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Working Alliance Analysis. (2026) · cites this paper as Stech et al. 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Stech, E. P., Lim, J., Upton, E. L., & Newby, J. M.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Stech, Eileen P.
- Venue
- Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-07-15
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 270-293
- ISSN
- 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
- 1651-2316
- OpenAlex
- W2962037468
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Australian National Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund Career Development Fellowship (MRFF1145382)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Keywords
- internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, panic disorder, agoraphobia, symptom severity, treatment efficacy, treatment effectiveness, maintenance of treatment effects, clinician support, program duration
- MeSH terms
- Agoraphobia, Humans, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Panic Disorder, Treatment Outcome, Internet
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