Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
, 11 (11), CD008712

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Plus Standard Care Versus Standard Care Plus Other Psychosocial Treatments for People With Schizophrenia

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Plus Standard Care Versus Standard Care Plus Other Psychosocial Treatments for People With Schizophrenia

Christopher Jones et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

Abstract

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to help individuals re-evaluate their appraisals of their experiences that can affect their level of distress and problematic behaviour. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Other psychosocial therapies that are often less expensive are also available as an add-on treatment for people with schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane Reviews on CBT for people with schizophrenia.

Objectives: To assess the effects of CBT compared with other psychosocial therapies as add-on treatments for people with schizophrenia.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study Based Register of Trials (latest 6 March, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with schizophrenia who were randomly allocated to receive, in addition to their standard care, either CBT or any other psychosocial therapy. Outcomes of interest included relapse, global state, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

Data collection and analysis: We reliably screened references and selected trials. Review authors, working independently, assessed trials for methodological quality and extracted data from included studies. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 60% completion rate. Where possible, for binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for analyses unless there was unexplained high heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.

Main results: The review now includes 36 trials with 3542 participants, comparing CBT with a range of other psychosocial therapies that we classified as either active (A) (n = 14) or non active (NA) (n = 14). Trials were often small and at high or unclear risk of bias. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference in long-term relapse was observed (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 375; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in global state data were not available but data for rehospitalisation were reported. Results showed no clear difference in long term rehospitalisation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; participants = 943; studies = 8, low-quality evidence) nor in long term mental state (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; participants = 249; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). No long-term differences were observed for death (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.98; participants = 627; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for social functioning and quality of life. Social functioning scores were similar between groups (long term Social Functioning Scale (SFS): MD 8.80, 95% CI -4.07 to 21.67; participants = 65; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence), and quality of life scores were also similar (medium term Modular System for Quality of Life (MSQOL): MD -4.50, 95% CI -15.66 to 6.66; participants = 64; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a modest but clear difference favouring CBT for satisfaction with treatment - measured as leaving the study early (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; participants = 2392; studies = 26, low quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Evidence based on data from randomised controlled trials indicates there is no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometimes much less sophisticated and expensive - psychosocial therapies for people with schizophrenia. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is mostly low or of very low quality. Good quality research is needed before firm conclusions can be made.

Conflict of interest statement

Chris Jones is a Clinical Psychologist who specialises in neuropsychology.

David Hacker is a Clinical Psychologist who specialises in neuropsychology.

Alan Meaden is a Clinical Psychologist who works with persons with psychosis.

Irene Cormac is a Forensic Psychiatrist ‐ no declarations of interest.

Claire Irving is the Managing Editor Cochrane Schizophrenia ‐ no declarations of interest.

Jun Xia runs a company Systematic Review Solutions that specialises in writing and completing systematic reviews ‐ no declarations of interest.

Sai Zhao is an employee of Systematic Review Solutions ‐ no declarations of interest.

Chunhu is an employee of Systematic Review Solutions ‐ no declarations of interest.

Jue Chen is an employee of Systematic Review Solutions ‐ no declarations of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection from 2014 and 2015 searching
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study selection from 2017 searching
Figure 3
Figure 3
Merged study flow diagrams for all searching up to March 2017
Figure 4
Figure 4
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.
Figure 5
Figure 5
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 CBT versus ALL OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES, outcome: 1.50 Satisfaction with treatment: 2. Leaving the study early.
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Average endpoint total score various scales, high = good).
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 3 Global state: 3. Rehospitalisation.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 4 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement).
Analysis 1.5
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 5 Mental state: 2. General (average endpoint total score, various scales, high = poor).
Analysis 1.6
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 6 Mental state: 3a. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 1.8
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 8 Mental state: 3c. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint BPRS subscale, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.9
Analysis 1.9
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 9 Mental state: 4a. Specific ‐ hallucinations (average endpoint score PSYRATS, high = poor).
Analysis 1.11
Analysis 1.11
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 11 Mental state: 5a. Specific ‐ delusions (average endpoint score PSYRATS subscale, high = poor) ‐ long term.
Analysis 1.13
Analysis 1.13
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 13 Mental state: 6a. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 1.15
Analysis 1.15
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 15 Mental state: 6c. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score SANS, high = poor).
Analysis 1.17
Analysis 1.17
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 17 Mental state: 6e. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score BPRS subscale, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.18
Analysis 1.18
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 18 Mental state: 7a. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 1.19
Analysis 1.19
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 19 Mental state: 7b. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score SCL90, high=poor) ‐ long term.
Analysis 1.22
Analysis 1.22
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 22 Mental state: 8c. Specific ‐ depression (average endpoint score HAMD, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.23
Analysis 1.23
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 23 Mental state: 9a. Specific ‐ self esteem (average endpoint score RSES, high = good).
Analysis 1.25
Analysis 1.25
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 25 Mental state: 10. Specific ‐ self stigma (average endpoint score SSMI, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.27
Analysis 1.27
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 27 Mental state: 11b. Specific ‐ anxiety (average endpoint score HAMA, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.28
Analysis 1.28
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 28 Mental state: 11c. Specific ‐ anxiety (average endpoint score SARS, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.29
Analysis 1.29
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 29 Mental state: 12b. Specific ‐ clinically important change ‐ Obessive Compulsive Disorder (no improvement).
Analysis 1.30
Analysis 1.30
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 30 Mental state: 12a. Specific ‐ Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (average endpoint score Y‐BOCS, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.31
Analysis 1.31
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 31 Mental state: 13. Specific ‐ anger/aggression (average endpoint score NAS, high = poor).
Analysis 1.34
Analysis 1.34
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 34 Adverse effect/event(s): 1. Number of events.
Analysis 1.35
Analysis 1.35
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 35 Adverse effect/event(s): 2. Death ‐ any cause.
Analysis 1.36
Analysis 1.36
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 36 Functioning: 1a. Social functioning (average endpoint score various scales, high = good).
Analysis 1.37
Analysis 1.37
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 37 Functioning: 1b. Social functioning (average endpoint score SOFAS, high = good).
Analysis 1.38
Analysis 1.38
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 38 Functioning: 2a. Cognitive functioning ‐ insight (average endpoint score various scales, high = good).
Analysis 1.41
Analysis 1.41
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 41 Quality of life: 1a. General (average endpoint score various scales, high = good).
Analysis 1.42
Analysis 1.42
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 42 Quality of life: 2a. Specific (average endpoint score MSQOL, high = good) ‐ short term.
Analysis 1.43
Analysis 1.43
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 43 Quality of life: 2b. Specific (average endpoint score MSQOL, high = good) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 1.44
Analysis 1.44
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 44 Satisfaction with treatment: 1. Leaving the study early.
Analysis 1.45
Analysis 1.45
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 45 Engagement with services: 1. Compliance with medication ‐ favourable compliance ‐ long term.
Analysis 1.46
Analysis 1.46
Comparison 1 CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 46 Engagement with services: 2. Attitude to medication (average endpoint score, various scales, high = good).
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse.
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Rehospitalisation.
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement).
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 4 Mental state: 3a. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS, high = poor).
Analysis 2.5
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 5 Mental state: 4a. Specific ‐ hallucinations (average endpoint score PSRS, high = poor).
Analysis 2.6
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 6 Mental state: 6a. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 2.7
Analysis 2.7
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 7 Mental state: 7a. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 2.8
Analysis 2.8
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 8 Adverse effect/event(s): 2. Death ‐ any cause.
Analysis 2.9
Analysis 2.9
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 9 Functioning: 1b. Social functioning (average endpoint score SOFAS, high = good).
Analysis 2.10
Analysis 2.10
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 10 Functioning: 2a. Cognitive functioning ‐ insight (average endpoint score various scales, high = good).
Analysis 2.11
Analysis 2.11
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 11 Satisfaction with treatment: 1. Leaving the study early ‐ for any reason.
Analysis 2.12
Analysis 2.12
Comparison 2 SUBGROUP 1: CBT versus ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 12 Engagement with services: 1. Compliance with medication ‐ favourable compliance ‐ long term.
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse.
Analysis 3.2
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 2 Global state: 2. Rehospitalisation.
Analysis 3.3
Analysis 3.3
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement).
Analysis 3.4
Analysis 3.4
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 4 Mental state: 3a. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS, high = poor).
Analysis 3.5
Analysis 3.5
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 5 Mental state: 4a. Specific ‐ hallucinations (average endpoint score PSRS, high = poor).
Analysis 3.6
Analysis 3.6
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 6 Mental state: 6a. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 3.7
Analysis 3.7
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 7 Mental state: 7a. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor).
Analysis 3.8
Analysis 3.8
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 8 Adverse effect/event(s): 2. Death ‐ any cause.
Analysis 3.9
Analysis 3.9
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 9 Functioning: 1b. Social functioning (average endpoint score SOFAS, high = good).
Analysis 3.10
Analysis 3.10
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 10 Functioning: 2a. Cognitive functioning ‐ insight (average endpoint score various scales, high = good).
Analysis 3.11
Analysis 3.11
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 11 Satisfaction with treatment: 1. Leaving the study early.
Analysis 3.12
Analysis 3.12
Comparison 3 SUBGROUP 2: CBT versus NON ACTIVE PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES, Outcome 12 Engagement with services: 1. Compliance with medication ‐ favourable compliance ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ medium term.
Analysis 4.2
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 2 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.3
Analysis 4.3
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 3 Global state: 2. Rehospitalisation ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.4
Analysis 4.4
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 4 Mental state: General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 4.5
Analysis 4.5
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 5 Mental state: General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.6
Analysis 4.6
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 6 Mental state: 3a. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 4.7
Analysis 4.7
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 7 Mental state: 3a. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS, high = poor) ‐ medium term term.
Analysis 4.8
Analysis 4.8
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 8 Mental state: 3a. Specific ‐ positive symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS, high = poor) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.9
Analysis 4.9
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 9 Mental state: 4a. Specific ‐ hallucinations (average endpoint score PSYRATS, high = poor) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.10
Analysis 4.10
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 10 Mental state: 6a. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 4.11
Analysis 4.11
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 11 Mental state: 6a. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 4.12
Analysis 4.12
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 12 Mental state: 6a. Specific ‐ negative symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.13
Analysis 4.13
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 13 Mental state: 7a. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor) ‐ short term.
Analysis 4.14
Analysis 4.14
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 14 Mental state: 7a. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 4.15
Analysis 4.15
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 15 Mental state: 7a. Specific ‐ affective symptoms (average endpoint score PANSS subscale, high = poor) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.16
Analysis 4.16
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 16 Adverse effects: 1b. Adverse effect/event(s) ‐ death.
Analysis 4.17
Analysis 4.17
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 17 Functioning: 1b. Social functioning (average endpoint score SOFAS, high = good) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.18
Analysis 4.18
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 18 Functioning: 2a. Cognitive functioning ‐ insight (average endpoint score SAI, high = good) ‐ long term.
Analysis 4.19
Analysis 4.19
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 19 Satisfaction with treatment: 1. Leaving the study early.
Analysis 4.20
Analysis 4.20
Comparison 4 SUBGROUP 3. CBT versus OTHER THERAPIES (TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE/NON ACTIVE SUBGROUPS, Outcome 20 Engagement with services: 1. Compliance with medication ‐ favourable compliance ‐ long term.
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (LESS‐WELL‐DESIGNED CBT), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ long term.
Analysis 5.2
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (LESS‐WELL‐DESIGNED CBT), Outcome 2 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ short term.
Analysis 5.3
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (LESS‐WELL‐DESIGNED CBT), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 5.4
Analysis 5.4
Comparison 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (LESS‐WELL‐DESIGNED CBT), Outcome 4 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ long term.
Analysis 6.1
Analysis 6.1
Comparison 6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (UNCLEAR EXPERIENCED THERAPISTS), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ long term.
Analysis 6.2
Analysis 6.2
Comparison 6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (UNCLEAR EXPERIENCED THERAPISTS), Outcome 2 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 7.1
Analysis 7.1
Comparison 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (ASSUMPTION FOR MISSING DATA), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ medium term.
Analysis 7.2
Analysis 7.2
Comparison 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (ASSUMPTION FOR MISSING DATA), Outcome 2 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ long term.
Analysis 7.3
Analysis 7.3
Comparison 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (ASSUMPTION FOR MISSING DATA), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 7.4
Analysis 7.4
Comparison 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (ASSUMPTION FOR MISSING DATA), Outcome 4 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ long term.
Analysis 8.1
Analysis 8.1
Comparison 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (RISK OF BIAS), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ medium term.
Analysis 8.2
Analysis 8.2
Comparison 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (RISK OF BIAS), Outcome 2 Global state: 1. Relapse ‐ long term.
Analysis 8.3
Analysis 8.3
Comparison 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (RISK OF BIAS), Outcome 3 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ short term.
Analysis 8.4
Analysis 8.4
Comparison 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (RISK OF BIAS), Outcome 4 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ medium term.
Analysis 8.5
Analysis 8.5
Comparison 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (RISK OF BIAS), Outcome 5 Mental state: 1. General ‐ clinically important change (no improvement) ‐ long term.
Analysis 9.1
Analysis 9.1
Comparison 9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: CBT versus OTHER PSYCHOSOCIAL THERAPIES (RANDOM EFFECT MODEL), Outcome 1 Global state: 1. Relapse (random effect model).

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 3 PubMed Central articles

Publication types

Feedback