| Title |
What does best evidence tell us about the efficacy of group cognitive–behavioral therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder? Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/prbm.s83872 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Pozza, Gerhad Andersson, Davide Dèttore |
| Abstract |
Group cognitive-behavioral therapy (GCBT) may be a cost-effective alternative modality for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). In the last decade, a great deal of research has been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of GCBT for OCD. Despite promising results, studies have produced inconclusive evidence. The current paper will present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of GCBT compared with control conditions or individual CBT at post-treatment and follow-up on OCD symptoms, anxiety, depression, obsessive beliefs, quality of life, and functioning. Another aim will be to compare the levels of early drop out from GCBT relative to control conditions or individual CBT. Finally, the study will investigate potential outcome moderators (age, sex, OCD severity, severity of concurrent depression, comorbid personality disorders, duration of OCD symptom onset, duration of treatment, intensity of treatment, generation cohort, methodological quality, and publication date). A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be conducted using random-effects meta-analyses. Online databases and trial registries will be searched, the corresponding authors will be contacted, and conference proceedings and relevant journals will be hand-searched to locate published and unpublished studies. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 35 | 45% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,444,212
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Psychology Research and Behavior Management
#248
of 554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,072
of 264,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychology Research and Behavior Management
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.