Fisher Peter L, Wells Adrian
Department of Clinical Psychology, Rawnsley Building, Manchester Royal Infirmary, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.
Behav Res Ther. 2005 Dec;43(12):1543-58. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2004.11.007.
Controlled outcome studies investigating the efficacy of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have employed different methods of determining the clinical significance of treatment effects. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the absolute and relative efficacy of psychological treatments for OCD. To address this issue, standardized Jacobson methodology for defining clinically significant change was applied to recent psychological outcome trials for OCD. The proportion of asymptomatic patients following treatment was also calculated. When recovery is defined by Jacobson methodology, exposure and response prevention (ERP) appears the most effective treatment currently available (50-60% recovered). However, when the asymptomatic criterion is used as the index of outcome, ERP and cognitive therapy have low and equivalent recovery rates (approximately 25%).
调查强迫症（OCD）心理治疗效果的对照结果研究采用了不同的方法来确定治疗效果的临床意义。这使得难以就OCD心理治疗的绝对和相对疗效得出结论。为解决这一问题，将定义临床显著变化的标准化雅各布森方法应用于最近的OCD心理治疗结果试验。还计算了治疗后无症状患者的比例。当按照雅各布森方法定义康复时，暴露与反应阻止法（ERP）似乎是目前最有效的治疗方法（50 - 60%康复）。然而，当将无症状标准用作结果指标时，ERP和认知疗法的康复率较低且相当（约25%）。
