Learn / Shared learning
What a source can and cannot tell you
The complete text is available below. Search, saving resources, and partner-practice tools require JavaScript.
A clinical manual explains an approach and its intended methods. A process study investigates what happens during therapy. An outcome trial compares treatments or conditions. A systematic review brings studies together. An interview or podcast offers a practitioner’s perspective. These sources can be useful for different reasons, but they do not support the same claims.
Ask which population, treatment format, comparator, outcome, and follow-up period were studied. Improvement before and after treatment is not, by itself, evidence that the treatment caused the improvement. An absence of a statistically significant difference does not establish equivalence.
A source marked “publisher description” or “table of contents” has not been read in full. A listing check does not mean a video was watched. An abstract review is not a full methods appraisal. The date of a link check is separate from the date a clinical claim was reviewed.
A theory about how therapy works can guide a useful intervention without being established as the only mechanism of change. Fictional scenes show reasoning, not effect sizes or promises.
Sources and review scope
Confidence Limits for the Mean (opens in a new tab)
Publisher description checked
Publisher, catalog, or organizer description reviewed. The work itself was not read, watched, or heard.
Checked the repeated-sampling interpretation of 95% confidence. Used for statistical language, not psychotherapy efficacy.
Recorded check: 2026-10-15. Source used for this record (opens in a new tab)
Additional editorial check · 2026-10-15: Official page checked.
Checked the repeated-sampling interpretation of 95% confidence. Used for statistical language, not psychotherapy efficacy.
Checked the repeated-sampling interpretation of 95% confidence. Used for statistical language, not psychotherapy efficacy.
Access status applies to the linked page; full publication access may differ.
Cognitive behavior therapy vs. control conditions, other psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and combined treatment for depression: a comprehensive meta-analysis including 409 trials with 52,702 patients (opens in a new tab)
Abstract checked
Abstract or official summary reviewed. Full paper not appraised.
Existing audited source identifier reused. Primary citation/abstract metadata rechecked where accessible; no new full-text outcome appraisal undertaken for this media selection. Earlier source record: Abstract reviewed through the Vrije Universiteit research portal. The earlier record linked the PubMed entry (PMID 36640411).
Recorded check: 2026-10-14. Source used for this record (opens in a new tab)
Additional editorial check · 2026-10-15: Abstract checked.
Verified 409-trial depression synthesis; do not treat it as evidence for every diagnosis or a clear general superiority of CBT over other psychotherapies.
Read a broad synthesis of CBT depression trials, their comparisons and methodological limits.
depression, comparative outcomes, formats
Open access.
Evidence appraisal
- Question
- How effective is CBT for depression against controls, other therapies, medication, and combined treatment?
- Population
- 409 trials (518 comparisons), 52,702 patients of all ages and settings.
- Intervention
- CBT in individual, group, guided, and self-help formats.
- Comparator
- Care as usual or waitlist; other psychotherapies; antidepressants; combined treatment.
- Design
- Random-effects meta-analysis.
- Outcomes
- Depression severity.
- Follow-up
- Short term and 6–12 months.
- Key results
- Against control g = 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). Against other psychotherapies g = 0.06 (0 to 0.12), non-significant in most sensitivity analyses. Against medication: no short-term difference; at 6–12 months g = 0.34 (0.09 to 0.58) favoring CBT, from few trials. Combined treatment beat medication alone but not CBT alone.
- Limitations
- Waitlist controls inflate effects; long-term comparisons rest on few trials; heterogeneity across formats and populations.
Dialectical behavior therapy for high suicide risk in individuals with borderline personality disorder: a randomized clinical trial and component analysis (opens in a new tab)
Published correction: Correction notice (opens in a new tab). Check the corrected article when using its results.
Abstract checked
Abstract or official summary reviewed. Full paper not appraised.
Existing audited source identifier reused. Primary citation/abstract metadata rechecked where accessible; no new full-text outcome appraisal undertaken for this media selection. Earlier source record: Full text appraised through an automated reader from a publicly hosted copy. Earlier source link corrected to the identified work during the October 14 bibliographic audit.
Recorded check: 2026-10-14. Source used for this record (opens in a new tab)
Additional editorial check · 2026-10-15: Abstract checked.
Checked three treatment conditions, controlled dose, and shared suicide-risk protocol. Modified DBT packages have been studied; this does not validate arbitrary DBT-informed care.
Examine the research question, comparison conditions and limits of this study of DBT.
component analysis, skills training, suicide risk
Journal access required; a public copy is hosted by an advocacy organization.
Evidence appraisal
- Question
- Which DBT components matter for people at high suicide risk?
- Population
- 99 women with borderline personality disorder and recent suicidal behavior or self-injury.
- Intervention
- Standard DBT (individual, skills group, consultation team, phone coaching).
- Comparator
- DBT skills plus case management; DBT individual therapy without skills training.
- Design
- Randomized component analysis, one year of treatment and one year of follow-up.
- Outcomes
- Suicide attempts, self-injury, crisis services, depression, anxiety, dropout.
- Follow-up
- One year.
- Key results
- Similar reductions in suicide attempts across arms. Skills-containing arms had fewer self-injury acts during treatment. Dropout 24% standard DBT, 39% skills plus case management, 48% individual-only.
- Limitations
- 33 per arm; not powered for equivalence; high dropout; women only.
Person-centred experiential therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy delivered in the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service for the treatment of moderate or severe depression (PRaCTICED): a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial (opens in a new tab)
Abstract checked
Abstract or official summary reviewed. Full paper not appraised.
Abstract and record reviewed through the White Rose repository. Earlier source link corrected to the identified work during the October 14 bibliographic audit.
Recorded check: 2026-10-13. Source used for this record (opens in a new tab)
Additional editorial check · 2026-10-15: Abstract checked.
Verified six-month noninferiority and less favorable twelve-month comparison. This is a specific person-centred experiential protocol, not every client-centered practice.
Provides a concrete trial design for comparing person-centered experiential therapy and CBT in a routine service.
depression, noninferiority, routine care
Repository copy available.
Evidence appraisal
- Question
- Is person-centred experiential therapy noninferior to CBT for moderate to severe depression in routine care?
- Population
- 510 adults in an English IAPT service.
- Intervention
- Person-centred experiential therapy (counselling for depression).
- Comparator
- CBT.
- Design
- Pragmatic randomized noninferiority trial; margin 2 PHQ-9 points.
- Outcomes
- PHQ-9 at 6 months; 12 months secondary.
- Follow-up
- 12 months.
- Key results
- 6 months: difference −0.35 (95% CI −1.53 to 0.84), noninferior. 12 months: 1.73 (0.26 to 3.19) favoring CBT; noninferiority not shown.
- Limitations
- Substantial attrition; single site; per-protocol exclusions.