Cited by 156Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Control Group Design: Enhancing Rigor in Research of Mind-Body Therapies for Depression

Open access
Kinser, Patricia Anne, Robins, Jo Lynne·2013·Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Abstract

Although a growing body of research suggests that mind-body therapies may be appropriate to integrate into the treatment of depression, studies consistently lack methodological sophistication particularly in the area of control groups. In order to better understand the relationship between control group selection and methodological rigor, we provide a brief review of the literature on control group design in yoga and tai chi studies for depression, and we discuss challenges we have faced in the design of control groups for our recent clinical trials of these mind-body complementary therapies for women with depression. To address the multiple challenges of research about mind-body therapies, we suggest that researchers should consider 4 key questions: whether the study design matches the research question; whether the control group addresses performance, expectation, and detection bias; whether the control group is ethical, feasible, and attractive; and whether the control group is designed to adequately control for nonspecific intervention effects. Based on these questions, we provide specific recommendations about control group design with the goal of minimizing bias and maximizing validity in future research.

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 · 10.1155/2013/140467

Cites

50 of 50 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
Kinser, P. A., & Robins, J. L.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Kinser, Patricia Anne
Venue
Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013
Volume
2013
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 1741-427X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-4288
OpenAlex
W1994579861
Cited by
155
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VCU Scholars Compass (Virginia Commonwealth University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (5-T32-AT000052)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
control group design, mind-body interventions, depression, yoga, Tai Chi, complementary therapy, methodological quality, performance bias, expectation bias, detection bias, women with depression, clinical trials

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