Cited by 205Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Methodological Recommendations for Trials of Psychological Interventions

Open access
Guidi, Jenny, Brakemeier, Eva-Lotta, Bockting, Claudi L.H., Cosci, Fiammetta, Cuijpers, Pim, Jarrett, Robin B., Linden, Michael, Marks, Isaac +12 more·2018·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract

Recent years have seen major developments in psychotherapy research that suggest the need to address critical methodological issues. These recommendations, developed by an international group of researchers, do not replace those for randomized controlled trials, but rather supplement strategies that need to be taken into account when considering psychological treatments. The limitations of traditional taxonomy and assessment methods are outlined, with suggestions for consideration of staging methods. Active psychotherapy control groups are recommended, and adaptive and dismantling study designs offer important opportunities. The treatments that are used, and particularly their specific ingredients, need to be described in detail for both the experimental and the control groups. Assessment should be performed blind before and after treatment and at long-term follow-up. A combination of observer- and self-rated measures is recommended. Side effects of psychotherapy should be evaluated using appropriate methods. Finally, the number of participants who deteriorate after treatment should be noted according to the methods that were used to define response or remission.

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 · 10.1159/000490574

Cites

62 of 62 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10 Sensky T: Evaluating the evidence base of consultation-liaison psychiatry; in Hoyle L, Streltzer J (eds): Handbook of ConsultationLiaison Psychiatry. New York, Springer, 2007, pp 28-36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guidi, J., Brakemeier, E.-L., Bockting, C. L. H., Cosci, F., Cuijpers, P., Jarrett, R. B., Linden, M., Marks, I., Peretti, C. S., Rafanelli, C., Rief, W., Schneider, S., Schnyder, U., Sensky, T., Tomba, E., Vazquez, C., Vieta, E., Zipfel, S., Wright, J. H., & Fava, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Sorbonne Université (FR)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (ES)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2018
Volume
87
Issue
5
Pages
276-284
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W2883850069
Cited by
205
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 2
FWCI
29.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dokumentenrepositorium der RUB (Ruhr University Bochum) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
psychological intervention, psychotherapy research methodology, treatment evaluation, treatment response and remission, long-term follow-up
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Research Design, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Biomedical Research

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