Cited by 30Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Group Cognitive-Behavior Therapy or Group Metacognitive Therapy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Benchmarking and Comparative Effectiveness in a Routine Clinical Service

Open access
Papageorgiou, Costas, Carlile, Karen, Thorgaard, Sue, Waring, Howard, Haslam, Justin, Horne, Louise, Wells, Adrian·2018·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), delivered in an individual or group format, is the recommended treatment of choice for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), but no studies have benchmarked the outcomes for group CBT in real-world clinical settings. The first aim of this evaluation was to benchmark the outcomes for group CBT in a sample of 125 patients who attended a routine clinical service for OCD. The results showed that the outcomes for the group CBT were comparable to those reported in previous treatment studies. However, consistent with the CBT for OCD literature, 28% of patients receiving CBT reported minimal improvement. The second aim of this evaluation was to carry out a benchmarking analysis for group metacognitive therapy (MCT) to determine if this could provide any advantages in a sample of 95 patients who also attended this clinical service over a subsequent period. The clinically significant results obtained for group MCT improved upon or equaled those obtained for group CBT and those typically found in treatment studies. The group MCT cohort improved significantly more than the group CBT cohort even after controlling for important pre-treatment variables including age, gender, number of diagnoses, symptoms of depression, and psychotropic medication. MCT had significantly higher clinical response rates. Based on international expert consensus criteria, 86.3% of patients in the MCT cohort responded compared with 64% in CBT. The implications of these findings are discussed.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02551

Cites

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?

  • In a non-randomized design, Wells' metacognitive therapy showed a superior response rate (86.3%) compared to group CBT (64%) in OCD.

    “Using a non-randomized-design, Wells’ metacognitive therapy was compared to group CBT in OCD, and the metacognitive therapy showed a superior response rate (a 86.3% response rate for metacognitive therapy compared to a 64% response rate for CBT) [37].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 65 · Cited by 30

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First M. B. Spitzer R. L. Gibbon M. Williams J. B. W. (1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders - Patient Edition (SCID-I/P). New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Authors
Papageorgiou, C., Carlile, K., Thorgaard, S., Waring, H., Haslam, J., Horne, L., & Wells, A.
Affiliations
  • Priory Hospital Altrincham (GB)
  • Mersey Care NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Papageorgiou, Costas
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2018-12-10
Volume
9
Pages
2551-2551
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2903785095
Cited by
30
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, group cognitive behavioral therapy, benchmarking, comparative effectiveness, treatment response rate, clinical response

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