Cited by 10Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for acute anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: study protocol for a network meta-analysis.

Open access
Zhang, Yuqing, Zhou, Xinyu, James, Anthony C, Qin, Bin, Whittington, Craig J, Cuijpers, Pim, Del Giovane, Cinzia, Liu, Yiyun +3 more·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety disorders are associated with significant public health burden in young individuals. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the most commonly used psychotherapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, but previous reviews were hindered by a limited number of trials with direct comparisons between different psychotherapies and their deliveries. Consequently, the main aim of this research was to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of various types and deliveries of psychotherapies for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and LiLACS for randomised controlled trials, regardless of whether participants received blinding or not, published from 1 January 1966 to 30 January 2015 (updated to 1 July 2015), that compared any psychotherapy with either a control condition or an active comparator with different types and/or different delivery formats for the acute treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments will be independently extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome for efficacy will be mean overall change scores in anxiety symptoms (self-rated or assessor-rated) from baseline to post-treatment between two groups. The acceptability of treatment will be measured as the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment during the acute phase of treatment. We will assess efficacy, based on the standardised mean difference (SMD), and acceptability, based on the OR, using a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be disseminated electronically and in print. The meta-analysis may be updated to inform and guide management of anxiety in children and adolescents. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015016283.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008572

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., James, A. C., Qin, B., Whittington, C. J., Cuijpers, P., Del Giovane, C., Liu, Y., Cohen, D., Weisz, J. R., & Xie, P.
Affiliations
  • The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN)
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
  • Sorbonne Université (FR)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Xie, Peng
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-10
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
e008572
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2172749378
Cited by
10
References
69
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Pfizer
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Pfizer Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
anxiety disorders, children, adolescents, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment efficacy, treatment acceptability, treatment discontinuation, anxiety symptoms
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Acute Disease, Adolescent, Anxiety Disorders, Child, Clinical Protocols, Humans, Mental Health, Psychotherapy, Research Design, Disease Management

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