Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine-ISPM, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Psychother Res. 2011 Nov;21(6):670-84. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. Epub 2011 Jul 28.
This meta-analysis investigated whether the association between researcher allegiance (RA) and the relative effect of two psychotherapies can be explained through the methodological weaknesses of the treatment comparisons. Seventy-nine comparisons of psychotherapies for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were included. Methodological quality (MQ) was investigated as both a moderator and a mediator of the RA-outcome association. MQ included balanced nonspecific factors, balanced specific factors, conceptual quality, patients-per-therapist ratio, randomization to conditions and outcome assessment. The RA-outcome association was stronger when the MQ was low, suggesting a buffering effect of MQ. In addition, differences in the conceptual quality of treatments mediated the effect of RA on outcome. The results support the view that RA acts as a bias in treatment comparisons.
本荟萃分析旨在探讨研究人员的忠诚（RA）与两种心理疗法的相对效果之间的关联是否可以通过治疗比较的方法学弱点来解释。共纳入了 79 项抑郁症或创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）心理疗法的比较。方法学质量（MQ）被视为 RA-结果关联的调节因素和中介因素。MQ 包括平衡的非特异性因素、平衡的特异性因素、概念质量、每位治疗师的患者比例、条件随机分配和结果评估。当 MQ 较低时，RA-结果关联更强，表明 MQ 具有缓冲作用。此外，治疗概念质量的差异中介了 RA 对结果的影响。研究结果支持 RA 作为治疗比较偏差的观点。
