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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.146761

Cites

78 of 78 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 80 references

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Higgins, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011)
  2. 10.1037/a0013642 · DOI
  3. 10.1017/S0033291711002480 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 552

Metadata

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
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