ReviewResearch on child and adolescent psychopathology2025
Potential for Harm in the Treatment of Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Pitfalls and Best Practices.
Review in Research on child and adolescent psychopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emotion Regulation in Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Related Interventions: A Scoping Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be debilitating and chronic unless treated early with efficacious intervention. The past several decades of intervention research have identified cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response/ritual prevention (ERP) as the first-line, evidence-based psychological intervention for pediatric OCD. Yet, many youths with OCD unfortunately remain inadequately treated. In well-meaning but misguided efforts to treat this complex disorder, clinicians holding misconceptions about ERP may fail to apply evidence-based treatments, misapply generic CBT techniques and ERP principles, or turn to non-evidence-based interventions. Potentially harmful treatments may worsen symptoms, while ineffective treatments can waste resources, impede patient access to efficacious treatment, and weaken public confidence in psychotherapy. The overarching goals of this review paper are to describe potentially harmful and ineffective practices in the treatment of pediatric OCD and to offer recommendations aligned with evidence-based practice. First, we dispel common misconceptions about ERP that may underlie its underuse among clinicians. We then describe potentially harmful and ineffective interventions for pediatric OCD, starting with misapplication of generic CBT techniques and ERP principles. We also identify non-evidence-based treatments for pediatric OCD that have limited conceptual or empirical foundations. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for clinicians who treat pediatric OCD, intervention researchers, training programs across mental health-related disciplines, and policymakers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39441501What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.