Cited by 553Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis

Open access
Cristea, Ioana A., Kok, Robin N., Cuijpers, Pim·2015·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice. Aims: To examine the efficiency of CBM for clinically relevant outcomes, along with study quality, publication bias and potential moderators. Method: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM interventions that reported clinically relevant outcomes assessed with standardised instruments. Results: We identified 49 trials and grouped outcomes into anxiety and depression. Effect sizes were small considering all the samples, and mostly non-significant for patient samples. Effect sizes became non-significant when outliers were excluded and after adjustment for publication bias. The quality of the RCTs was suboptimal. Conclusions: CBM may have small effects on mental health problems, but it is also very well possible that there are no significant clinically relevant effects. Research in this field is hampered by small and low-quality trials, and by risk of publication bias. Many positive outcomes are driven by extreme outliers.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.146761

Cites

78 of 78 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?

  • Such training has robust effects upon attentional or interpretation bias per se, but studies tend to show small effect sizes on anxiety symptoms in clinical samples.

    “However, while such training has robust effects upon attentional or interpretation bias per se , studies tend to show small effect sizes on anxiety symptoms in clinical samples 255,256 .”

    From The clinical characterization of the adult patient with an anxiety or related disorder aimed at personalization of management (2021) · cites this paper as [255]

    The General anxiety results for clinical samples report a non-significant effect (g = 0.29), falling to g = −0.01 after an outlier was removed. But the Summary of main findings says this meta-analysis did not specifically examine effects on attentional or interpretation bias, so it does not establish the claim that those effects are robust. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evidence for the efficacy of ApBM for nonclinical samples is inconclusive.

    “Although the evidence for the efficacy of ApBM for nonclinical samples is inconclusive (Boffo et al., 2019; Cristea et al., 2015; Wiers et al., 2018)”

    From Acceptability and Co-Development of an Online Cognitive Bias Modification Intervention for Emerging Adults With Hazardous Alcohol Use and Social Anxiety: A Mixed Methods Study (2020) · cites this paper as Cristea et al., 2015

    The Abstract (page unavailable) says the efficacy of cognitive bias modification (CBM) is uncertain, and the Characteristics of included studies section reports that the review included unselected participants. But the paper does not establish that conclusion specifically for approach bias modification (ApBM) in nonclinical samples; its reported effects pool different CBM interventions and samples. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CBM's efficacy among nonclinical samples is inconsistent.

    “While CBM's efficacy among nonclinical samples is inconsistent (Boffo et al., 2019; Cristea et al., 2015; Wiers et al., 2018), there are particularly promising findings in clinical contexts as clients are motivated to change their thoughts and behavior (Wiers et al., 2018).”

    From Acceptability and Co-Development of an Online Cognitive Bias Modification Intervention for Emerging Adults With Hazardous Alcohol Use and Social Anxiety: A Mixed Methods Study (2020) · cites this paper as Cristea et al., 2015

    The Summary of main findings reports small CBM effects and high heterogeneity across all samples, and Characteristics of included studies confirms that unselected and subclinical participants were included. But the reported inconsistency is for the combined sample, not specifically for nonclinical samples. The later claim about promising clinical findings is attributed to a different citation, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some attention bias modification projects have been limited by small sample sizes and poor trial methodology.

    “Unfortunately, some projects have been limited by small sample sizes and poor trial methodology [20–23].”
  • A possibility of some effect of CBM-I was suggested, but not at a level matching initial enthusiasm.

    “A possibility of some effect of CBM-I was suggested, however, not at the level that would match initial enthusiasm.”

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

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Watkins ER, Baeyens CB, Read R. Concreteness training reduces dysphoria: proof-of-principle for repeated cognitive bias modification in depression. J Abnorm Psychol 2009; 118: 55-64.
  2. Watkins ER, Taylor RS, Byng R, Baeyens C, Read R, Pearson K, et al. Guided self-help concreteness training as an intervention for major depression in primary care: a Phase II randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med 2012; 42: 1359-71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cristea, I. A., Kok, R. N., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
University of Pisa (IT)
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2015-01
Volume
206
Issue
1
Pages
7-16
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2051006097
Cited by
553
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, anxiety, depression, treatment efficacy, publication bias, trial quality, effect size, outliers, mental health interventions
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Depression, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Publication Bias

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