Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39922105›Full record

SynthesisJournal of anxiety disorders2025

A meta-analytic review of cognitive processing therapy with and without the written account.

Julia C Sager, Christopher R DeJesus, Jaclyn C Kearns, Johanna Thompson-Hollands, Stephanie L Trendel, Brian P Marx, Denise M Sloan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Julia C SagerNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: julia.sager@va.gov.
Christopher R DeJesusNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Jaclyn C KearnsNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Johanna Thompson-HollandsNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Stephanie L TrendelNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Brian P MarxNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Denise M SloanNational Center for PTSD, Behavioral Science Division, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Postdoctoral Training Program in Stress and TraumaT32MH019836 · NIMH · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI DENISE M. SLOAN · 1996 to 2026
$4.7M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019836
6 · The paper itself

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

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyStress Disorders, Post-TraumaticHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVeteransCognitive processing therapyPosttraumatic stress disorderTraumaTrauma-focused treatment

Identifiers

PMID39922105
PMCPMC12034002

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.