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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, this cooccurrence is not consistently found [7], and conclusions are complicated by methodological issues (e.g., differing outcome measures, confounding variables, low-quality studies, publication bias) [9,79].”
From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Unfortunately, some projects have been limited by small sample sizes and poor trial methodology [20–23].”
In the citing paper
“A possibility of some effect of CBM-I was suggested, however, not at the level that would match initial enthusiasm.”
From Cognitive neuropsychological theory of antidepressant action: a modern-day approach to depression and its treatment (2021) · cites this paper as Cristea et al. 2015
In the citing paper
“a more recent meta-analysis (Cristea et al. 2015) failed to support this treatment effect, in particular in case of CBM-A.”
From Cognitive neuropsychological theory of antidepressant action: a modern-day approach to depression and its treatment (2021) · cites this paper as Cristea et al. 2015
In the citing paper
“Although these approaches have been shown to effectively retrain biases, estimates of the effects on clinical outcomes in adults are modest [108].”
From Positive and Negative Emotion Regulation in Adolescence: Links to Anxiety and Depression (2019) · cites this paper as [108]
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
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Higgins, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011)
- 10.1037/a0013642 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0033291711002480 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Transdiagnostic approaches to mental health problems: Current status and future directions.
Dalgleish, T., Black, M., Johnston, D., & Bevan, A. (2020) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000482 · Cited by 883
Reflecting on rumination: Consequences, causes, mechanisms and treatment of rumination
Watkins, E. R., & Roberts, H. (2020) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2020.103573 · Cited by 862
Examining emotion regulation in depression: A review and future directions
Joormann, J., & Stanton, C. H. (2016) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.07.007 · Cited by 749
Craske, M. G., & Stein, M. B. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30381-6 · Cited by 640
The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on psychological treatments research in tomorrow's science
Holmes, E. A., Ghaderi, A., Harmer, C. J., Ramchandani, P. G., Cuijpers, P., Morrison, A. P., Roiser, J. P., Bockting, C. L. H., O'Connor, R. C., Shafran, R., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(17)30513-8 · Cited by 624
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cristea, I. A., Kok, R. N., & Cuijpers, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Pisa (IT)
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
