4.2 Review

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY FOR POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2190/PM.38.3.b

关键词

posttraumatic stress disorder; cognitive behavioral therapy; systematic review

资金

  1. State of Sao Paulo Research Council
  2. Fapesp [04/15039-0]
  3. Millennium Institute, the National Research Council
  4. CNPq [42.122/2005-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the most common psychotherapy approach for the treatment of PTSD. Nevertheless, previous reviews on the efficacy of several types of psychotherapy were unable to detect differences between CBT and other psychotherapies. The purpose of this study was to conduct systematic review on the efficacy of CBT in comparison with studies that used other psychotherapy techniques. Method: Databases were searched using the following terms: posttraumatic stress disorder/stress disorder, treatment/psychotherapy/behavior cognitive therapy, randomized trials, and adults. Randomized clinical trials published between 1980 and 2005 and that compared CBT with other treatments for PTSD was included. The main outcomes were remission, clinical improvement, dropout rates and changes in symptoms. Results: The 23 clinical trials included in the review comprised 1,923 patients: 898 in the treatment group and 1,025 in the control group. CBT had better remission rates than EMDR (RR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.16; 0.79; p = 0.01) or supportive therapies (RR = 0.43; 95%CI: 0.25; 0.74; p = 0.002, completer analysis). CBT was comparable to Exposure Therapy (ET) (RR = 0.90; 95%CI: 0.58; 1.40; p = 0.64), and cognitive therapy (CT) (RR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.67; 1.51; p = 0.98) in terms of efficacy and compliance. Conclusions: These findings suggest that specific therapies, such as CBT, exposure therapy and cognitive therapy are equally effective, and more effective than supportive techniques in the treatment of PTSD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据