CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acceptance and Efficacy of Metacognitive Training (MCT) on Positive Symptoms and Delusions in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Meta-analysis Taking Into Account Important Moderators

Open access
Eichner, Carolin, Berna, Fabrice·2016·Schizophrenia Bulletin
DOI 10.1093/schbul/sbv225PMC PMC4903058
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Metacognitive training (MCT) is a new, widely used intervention for psychosis. The present meta-analysis examines the efficacy of MCT in schizophrenia. Fifteen studies comparing effects of MCT on positive symptoms, delusions or acceptance of MCT with a control group were included in this meta-analysis. These studies comprised a total of 408 patients in the MCT condition and 399 in the control condition. The moderating effects of masking of outcome assessment, randomization, incomplete outcome data, use of an active control intervention, and individual vs group MCT were investigated. Possible effects of sensitivity analyses and publication bias were also examined. The results show a significant overall effect of MCT for positive symptoms (g = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.53, -0.15]), delusions (g = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.07]) and acceptance of the intervention (g = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.37, -0.31]). Using only studies being at low risk for bias regarding randomization, masking and incomplete outcome data reduced effect sizes for positive symptoms and delusions (g = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.06] and g = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.06]), respectively. This meta-analysis demonstrates that MCT exerts a small to moderate effect on delusions and positive symptoms and a large effect on acceptance of the intervention. The effect on delusions is reduced, but remains significant when potential biases are considered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbv225

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Fourth Edition (DSM-IV-TR). 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
  2. Higgins JPT Green S . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 1st ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–218 of 218

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Eichner, C., & Berna, F.
Affiliations
Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Berna, Fabrice
ORCID
Berna, Fabrice
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
952-962
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
DOI
10.1093/schbul/sbv225
PMC
PMC4903058
OpenAlex
W2226563784
Cited by
218
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
metacognitive training, schizophrenia
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Cognitive Remediation, Delusions, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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