Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: The relative efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder: a meta-analytical evaluation of randomized controlled trials

Study

n per study arm (dropout)

Compared treatments (plus categorization)

Study quality & Jadad score

Primary outcome (at post-treatment)

Secondary outcome (at post-treatment)

Brom et al. [57]

31(4)/29(4)/29(4)

Trauma desensitization (EX; TF) vs. brief psychodynamic therapya vs. hypnotherapyb (EX; TF)

0/0/+/+/0/0/0: 1

1 vs. 2: −0.26 [−0.80, 0.29]

1 vs. 2: 0.23 [−0.19, 0.65]

1 vs. 3: −0.26 [−0.81, 0.28]

1 vs. 3: 0.02 [−0.40, 0.43]

2 vs. 3: −0.05 [−0.60, 0.51]

2 vs. 3: −0.22 [−0.64, 0.21]

Bryant et al. [58]

31(8)/28(6)

Imaginal EX (TF) vs. in vivo EX (TF)

+/+/+/+/+/+/+: 4

0.05 [−0.37, 0.47]

0.16 [−0.25, 0.58]

Cook et al. [47]c

61(22)/63(12)

Imagery Rehearsal (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. Sleep & Nightmare Management (CBT)

+/+/+/+/+/+/+: 4

−0.10 [−0.41, 0.20]

−0.09 [−0.36, 0.18]

Cottraux et al. [59]c

31(4)/29(14)

CBT (TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. Rogerian supportive therapy (PCT)

+/+/+/+/0/0/+: 4

−0.05 [−0.68, 0.58]

−0.16 [−0.63, 0.30]

Devilly & Spence [60]

15(3)/17(6)

Cognitive-behavior trauma treatment protocol (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. EMDR (TF)

0/0/+/+/+/0/0: 1

−0.58 [−1.24, 0.09]

−0.29 [−0.96, 0.39]

Foa et al. [42]c

17(3)/14(4)

Stress inoculation training (CBT) vs. PE (TF)

0/+/+/+/+/0/+: 2

−0.54 [−1.37, 0.29]

−0.22 [−0.89, 0.44]

Foa et al. [61]c

26(7)/25(2)

Stress inoculation training (CBT) vs. PE (TF)

0/+/+/+/+/0/+: 2

0.14 [−0.46, 0.75]

0.62 [−0.08, 1.16]

Hien et al. [46]c

41(16)/34(10)

Seeking Safety (CBT) vs. relapse prevention (CBT)

0/0/0/+/+/+/+: 0

0.32 [−0.04, 0.69]

0.18 [−0.27, 0.64]

Ironson et al. [62]

10(0)/12(6)

EMDR (TF) vs. PE (TF)

0/0/+/0/+/0/+: 1

−0.62 [−1.55, 0.31]

−1.29 [−2.30, −0.28]

Lee et al. [63]

13(1)/13(1)

Stress inoculation training + PE (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. EMDR (TF)

0/0/0/+/+/0/+: 0

0.53 [−0.14, 1.19]

0.52 [−0.30, 1.33]

Marks et al. [64]

19(1)/23(3)

Cognitive restructuring (CBT; TF) vs. PE (TF)

0/+/+/0/+/0/+: 2

0.07 [−0.55, 0.70]

0.19 [−0.34, 0.72]

McDonagh et al. [44]c

29(12)/22(2)

CBT (TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. problem solving therapy (PCT)

0/+/+/+/+/+/+: 2

0.22 [−0.33, 0.78]

0.22 [−0.21, 0.64]

Neuner et al. [65]c

17(2)/14(1)

Narrative exposure therapy (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. supportive counselling (PCT)

+/+/+/+/+/0/0: 4

−0.06 [−0.80, 0.68]

−0.23 [−0.98, 0.52]

Paunovic & Öst [66]

10(3)/10(1)

CBT (TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. EX (TF)

0/0/+/0/0/0/0: 1

−0.20 [−0.94, 0.54]

−0.29 [−1.05, 0.47]

Power et al. [45]

37(16)/39(12)

Cognitive restructuring + EX (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. EMDR (TF)

+/+/+/+/+/0/+: 4

0.55 [0.07, 1.02]

0.56 [0.10, 1.02]

Ready et al. [67]c

6(1)/5(1)

Virtual reality EX (TF) vs. PCT

0/+/+/0/0/0/+: 2

−0.51 [−1.86, 0.84]

−1.62 [−3.26, 0.02]

Resick et al. [68]

62(11)/62(12)

Cognitive processing (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. PE (TF)

0/0/+/+/+/+/+: 1

−0.27 [−0.57, 0.04]

−0.46 [−0.74, −0.18]

Rothbaum et al. [69]

25(5)/23(3)

EMDR (TF) vs. PE (TF)

0/+/0/0/+/0/+: 1

0.34 [−0.17, 0.85]

0.50 [0.00, 1.00]

Schnurr et al. [70]c

162(44)/163(28)

Trauma-focused group therapy (CBT; TFCBT + EX; TF) vs. PCT group therapy

+/+/+/0/+/+/+: 4

−0.12 [−0.31, 0.07]

0.00 [−0.17, 0.17]

Schnurr et al. [71]c

143(30)/141(53)

PCT vs. PE (TF)

+/+/+/+/+/+/+: 4

0.31 [0.11, 0.51]

0.14 [−0.05, 0.33]

Tarrier et al. [72]

37(4)/35(6)

Cognitive therapy (CBT; TF) vs. imaginal EX (TF)

+/+/0/0/+/0/+: 3

0.17 [−0.22, 0.57]

0.07 [−0.36, 0.50]

Taylor et al. [73]

19(4)/22(7)

EMDR (TF) vs. EX (TF)

0/+/+/+/+/0/+: 2

0.32 [−0.30, 0.94]

0.17 [−0.40, 0.74]

  1. Note. aNot categorized with regards to type of treatment; bcategorized according to description given in study; cused for comparison of TF versus NTF therapies. Figures of study quality correspond to ratings (+: present; 0: absent) whether (1) randomization was adequate, (2) assessment was blinded, (3) reasons for dropout or analyses on differences between dropouts and completers were reported, (4) therapists were trained in the provided treatment, (5) adherence to treatment manuals or protocols was ensured with adequate measures or checked empirically, (6) ITT-analyses were conducted and adequately reported, (7) a treatment manual or protocol existed (in this order); Jadad scores (min = 0, max = 4), based on these ratings, are reported after the colon. Outcomes correspond to estimates of Hedges’ g along with 95 % confidence intervals; g > 0 signifies that effects at post-treatment were larger for the first of the two compared treatments, g < 0 signifies that effects were smaller