Cited by 129Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Is computerised CBT really helpful for adult depression?-A meta-analytic re-evaluation of CCBT for adult depression in terms of clinical implementation and methodological validity

Open access
So, Mirai, Yamaguchi, Sosei, Hashimoto, Sora, Sado, Mitsuhiro, Furukawa, Toshi A, McCrone, Paul·2013·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression is a major cause of disability worldwide, and computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT) is expected to be a more augmentative and efficient treatment. According to previous meta-analyses of CCBT, there is a need for a meta-analytic revaluation of the short-term effectiveness of this therapy and for an evaluation of its long-term effects, functional improvement and dropout. METHODS: Five databases were used (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CiNii). We included all RCTs with proper concealment and blinding of outcome assessment for the clinical effectiveness of CCBT in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression. Using Cohen's method, the standard mean difference (SMD) for the overall pooled effects across the included studies was estimated with a random effect model. The main outcome measure and the relative risk of dropout were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen trials met the inclusion criteria, and sixteen comparisons from these were used for the largest meta-analysis ever. All research used appropriate random sequence generation and Intention-to-Treat analyses (ITT), and employed self-reported measures as the primary outcome. For the sixteen comparisons (2807 participants) comparing CCBT and control conditions, the pooled SMD was -0.48 [95% IC -0.63 to -0.33], suggesting similar effect to the past reviews. Also, there was no significant clinical effect at long follow-up and no improvement of function found. Furthermore, a significantly higher drop-out rate was found for CCBT than for controls. When including studies without BDI as a rating scale and with only modern imputation as sensitivity analysis, the pooled SMD remained significant despite the reduction from a moderate to a small effect. Significant publication bias was found in a funnel plot and on two tests (Begg's p = 0.09; Egger's p = 0.01). Using a trim and fill analysis, the SMD was -0.32 [95% CI -0.49 to -0.16]. CONCLUSION: Despite a short-term reduction in depression at post-treatment, the effect at long follow-up and the function improvement were not significant, with significantly high drop-out. Considering the risk of bias, our meta-analysis implied that the clinical usefulness of current CCBT for adult depression may need to be re-considered downwards in terms of practical implementation and methodological validity.

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 · 10.1186/1471-244x-13-113

Cites

67 of 67 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Moran PW Lambert JM Lambert MJ, Christensen ER, De Julio SS A review of current assessment tools for monitoring changes in depression The Measurement of Psychotherapy Outcome in Research and Evaluation 1983 New York: Wiley 263 303
  2. Moran PW A Review of Current Assessment Tools for Monitoring Changes in Depression 1982 Brigham Young University: Department of Psychology

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
So, M., Yamaguchi, S., Hashimoto, S., Sado, M., Furukawa, T. A., & McCrone, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry (JP)
  • Edogawa University (JP)
  • Keio University (JP)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
So, Mirai
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2013-04-15
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998160684
Cited by
129
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
19.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (25293150)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, adult depression, treatment effectiveness, long-term follow-up, functional improvement, dropout, publication bias, risk of bias, methodological validity, clinical implementation
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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