Cited by 525Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Empirical Status of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of 44 Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Goldberg, Simon B., Riordan, Kevin M., Sun, Shufang, Davidson, Richard J.·2022·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

In response to questions regarding the scientific basis for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), we evaluated their empirical status by systematically reviewing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched six databases for effect sizes based on four or more trials that did not combine passive and active controls. Heterogeneity, moderators, tests of publication bias, risk of bias, and adverse effects were also extracted. Representative effect sizes based on the largest number of studies were identified across a wide range of populations, problems, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICOS). A total of 160 effect sizes were reported in 44 meta-analyses ( k = 336 RCTs, N = 30,483 participants). MBIs showed superiority to passive controls across most PICOS ( ds = 0.10–0.89). Effects were typically smaller and less often statistically significant compared with active controls. MBIs were similar or superior to specific active controls and evidence-based treatments. Heterogeneity was typically moderate. Few consistent moderators were found. Results were generally robust to publication bias, although other important sources of bias were identified. Reporting of adverse effects was inconsistent. Statistical power may be lacking in meta-analyses, particularly for comparisons with active controls. Because MBIs show promise across some PICOS, future RCTs and meta-analyses should build on identified strengths and limitations of this literature.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/1745691620968771

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 111 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Analayo, 2018, Satipatthana meditation: A practice guide
  2. Goldstein J., 2013, Mindfulness: A practical guide to awakening
  3. Teleki J. W. (2010). Mindfulness-based stress reduction: A meta-analysis of psychological outcomes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. PGSP-Stanford PsyD Consortium, Palo Alto, CA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 525

Metadata

Authors
Goldberg, S. B., Riordan, K. M., Sun, S., & Davidson, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Goldberg, Simon B.
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2021-02-16
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
108-130
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W3132572579
Cited by
520
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 120 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 26
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH43454, T32MH078788)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K23AT010879, P01AT004952)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, effect size, passive control, active control, evidence-based treatment, publication bias, risk of bias, adverse effects, statistical power, heterogeneity, moderators
MeSH terms
Humans, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Mindfulness

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