SynthesisPsychological medicine2025
Effectiveness of digital psychological and psychoeducational interventions to prevent anxiety: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Preliminary Efficacy and Feasibility of SMILE Serious Game for Adolescents and Young Adults: Protocol for Cluster Randomized Multisite Adaptive Trial Design.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Recruitment strategies and participant motivations in a digital randomized controlled trial for the prevention of anxiety disorders: the prevANS study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
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
The high incidence of new cases of anxiety disorders highlights the need for scalable preventive interventions, which can be achieved through information and communication technologies. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate purely digital preventive interventions for anxiety in all types of populations. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions for the prevention of anxiety disorders. Systematic searches were conducted in six electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and CENTRAL) from inception to December 12, 2024. Inclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) psychological or psychoeducational digital interventions to prevent anxiety, and (3) all types of populations without anxiety at baseline of the study. A total of 15 studies (19 comparisons; 6093 participants) were included in the systematic review. One study was identified as an outlier and was therefore excluded from the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed a small effect in favor of preventive interventions among non-anxious and varied populations (standardized mean difference = -0.32, 95% confidence interval: -0.44 to -0.20; p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of this finding. We found no evidence of publication bias. Heterogeneity was high, however, a meta-regression that included one variable (country, the Netherlands) explained 100% of the variance. All RCTs, except two, had a high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence, according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, was very low. There is a need to develop and evaluate new digital preventive interventions with a rigorous methodology.
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.