SynthesisJournal of anxiety disorders2025
A meta-analytic review of cognitive processing therapy with and without the written account.
Synthesis in Journal of anxiety disorders, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are two versions of the Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) protocol: one that includes a trauma narrative and one that does not. Despite both versions being used in clinical practice, to date, there has not been a comprehensive comparison of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment outcomes associated with these two protocols. The current study is a meta-analytic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of CPT+A (k = 13) and CPT-C (k = 16) in which we investigated whether there are differences in treatment outcome effect sizes and treatment dropout between the two protocol versions. Sample type (military/veteran versus non-military/non-veteran) as a moderator was examined, given that less robust PTSD treatment outcomes have been typically observed in military and veteran samples. Meta-regression analyses revealed that there were no significant differences between the two CPT protocol versions in pre-post PTSD treatment effect sizes, t(26) = -0.743, p = .463. As expected, studies that enrolled a military or veteran sample reported an average smaller symptom reduction (g = 0.95) than studies that enrolled a non-military or non-veteran sample (g = 1.41), t(26) = 2.48, p = .019. There were also no significant differences between the two CPT protocols for treatment dropout, t(26) = 1.69, p = .104, or between studies enrolling military/veteran and non-military/non-veteran samples t(26) = -1.10, p = .282. The findings support the use of either CPT protocol in practice, but also demonstrate that veterans and service members may be less responsive to either CPT protocol than other trauma samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.