Cited by 41Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

D-cycloserine augmentation of behavior therapy for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders: a meta-analysis

Open access
Bürkner, Paul-Christian, Bittner, Nadine, Holling, Heinz, Buhlmann, Ulrike·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present meta-analysis investigates whether the antibiotic D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial agonist at the glutamatergic N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, can augment the effect of behavior therapy in humans with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders. METHOD: A keyword-based computer search was conducted using common electronic databases. Only studies investigating the effect of DCS in humans with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders were included, resulting in 23 studies with a combined sample size of 1314 patients. Effect sizes were coded as Hedges' g and SMCC, the latter also incorporating differences in pre-treatment values. Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis was applied to take dependencies of effect sizes obtained from the same study into account. RESULTS: While previous meta-analyses found small to moderate improvements, the current results including the most recent research indicate that the overall effect of DCS is very small and almost indistinguishable from zero (g = -0.12, CI = [-0.27, 0.02]; SMCC = -0.10, CI = [-0.29, 0.07]). Slightly larger effects were found for social anxious patients. Further, study quality and year of publication were relevant moderators, with higher quality / more recent studies reported smaller effects of DCS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings raise the question of the usefulness of DCS as an augmentation of exposure therapy for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders. At least, it seems to be less promising than initially thought. The fact that study quality was inversely related to the reported effect sizes underlines the importance of high quality primary research in order to avoid over-estimation of treatment effects in clinical psychology.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0173660

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • A recent meta-analysis concluded a small to moderate effect of D-cycloserine administration for SAD patients in particular.

    “A recent meta-analysis (Burkner et al., 2017) concluded a small to moderate effect of D-cycloserine administration for SAD patients in particular.”

    From Virtual Reality exposure therapy in the treatment of public speaking anxiety and social anxiety disorder (2024) · cites this paper as Burkner et al., 2017

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says D-cycloserine may have a small to moderate effect for socially anxious patients, but cautions that the subgroup finding needs more research. The claim omits that uncertainty and presents the effect as a firm conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bürkner, P.-C., Bittner, N., Holling, H., & Buhlmann, U.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Bürkner, Paul-Christian
  • Buhlmann, Ulrike
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-03-10
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
e0173660
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2592039616
Cited by
41
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • URN:NBN Resolver for Germany & Switzerland (German National Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
D-cycloserine, augmentation therapy, behavior therapy, exposure therapy, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, NMDA receptor partial agonist, social anxiety, treatment effect size, study quality
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Bayes Theorem, Cycloserine, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

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