Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Aug 27;4:639.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6954.1. eCollection 2015.

Double Blinding Requirement for Validity Claims in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Intervention Trials for Major Depressive Disorder. Analysis of Hollon S, Et Al., Effect of Cognitive Therapy With Antidepressant Medications vs Antidepressants Alone on the Rate of Recovery in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Double Blinding Requirement for Validity Claims in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Intervention Trials for Major Depressive Disorder. Analysis of Hollon S, Et Al., Effect of Cognitive Therapy With Antidepressant Medications vs Antidepressants Alone on the Rate of Recovery in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Douglas Berger. F1000Res. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

This paper will focus on problems in the inability to double-blind cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) studies for major depressive disorder (MDD), and provides an analysis of a recently published study to show how this problem can lead to faulty conclusions. A study by Hollon et al. published in JAMA Psychiatry that compared an antidepressant medication-only arm with a combined CBT/antidepressant arm concluded that the cognitive therapy/antidepressant combination enhanced the recovery rates compared with antidepressant alone, and that the magnitude of this increment nearly doubled for patients with more severe depression. We propose that for subjects with greater severity, there could have been both antidepressant efficacy as well as more hope and expectation in the group who knew they had received combined cognitive therapy/medication, leading to an erroneous conclusion of greater efficacy for the combined group. The large subject number in this study could easily lead to an erroneous finding on statistical testing as a small amount of bias in the subjects adds-up. We opine that the conclusions of unblind CBT outcome research in conditions with subjective endpoints such as MDD need to be given with great caution. The validity of CBT (and its derivatives such as dialectical behavioral therapy) for indications other than MDD is also part of a larger problem in the inability to blind outcome studies for these interventions.

Keywords: blinding; clinical trials; cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT); outcome studies; psychotherapy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. The author has no financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations other than those affiliations listed in the title page of the manuscript. There was no data collected or analyzed for this paper.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Piantadosi S: Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective, Second Edition. New York: Wiley-Interscience,2005. 10.1002/0471740136 - DOI
    1. Hanrahan C, New JP: Antidepressant Medications: The FDA-Approval Process and the Need for Updates. Ment Health Clin. 2014;4(1):11–16. 10.9740/mhc.n186950 - DOI
    1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002;359(9307):696–700. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friedman LM, Furgerg CD, DeMets DL: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, Third Edition. Springer;1998. Reference Source
    1. Lynch D, Laws KR, McKenna PJ: Cognitive behavioural therapy for major psychiatric disorder: does it really work? A meta-analytical review of well-controlled trials. Psychol Med. 2010;40(1):9–24. 10.1017/S003329170900590X - DOI - PubMed

Grant support

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback