van der Gaag Mark, Valmaggia Lucia R, Smit Filip
VU University Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO+ Institute of Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Department of Psychiatry, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom; Outreach and Support in South London (OASIS), South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Schizophr Res. 2014 Jun;156(1):30-7. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2014.03.016. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
There is no meta-analysis of cognitive behavioural therapy for delusions and hallucinations separately. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the end-of-treatment effects of individually tailored case-formulation cognitive behavioural therapy on delusions and auditory hallucinations using symptom-specific outcome measures. A systematic search of the trial literature was conducted in MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO and EMBASE. Eighteen studies were selected with symptom specific outcome measures. Hedges' g was computed and outcomes were pooled meta-analytically using the random-effects model. Our main analyses were with the selected studies with CBT using individually tailored case-formulation that aimed to reduce hallucinations and delusions. The statistically significant effect-sizes were 0.36 with delusions and 0.44 with hallucinations, which are modest and in line with other recent meta-analyses. Contrasted with active treatment, CBT for delusions lost statistical significance (0.33), but the effect-size for CBT for hallucinations increased (0.49). Blinded studies reduced effect-size in delusions (0.24) and gained some in hallucinations (0.46). There was no heterogeneity in hallucinations and moderate heterogeneity in delusion trials. We conclude that CBT is effective in treating auditory hallucinations. CBT for delusions is also effective, but the results must be interpreted with caution, because of heterogeneity and the non-significant effect-sizes when compared with active treatment.
目前尚无单独针对妄想和幻觉的认知行为疗法的荟萃分析。本荟萃分析的目的是使用症状特异性结局指标,评估个体化定制的个案制定认知行为疗法对妄想和幻听的治疗结束时的效果。在MEDLINE、PSYCHINFO和EMBASE中对试验文献进行了系统检索。选择了18项具有症状特异性结局指标的研究。计算了Hedges' g,并使用随机效应模型对结果进行了荟萃分析汇总。我们的主要分析是针对采用个体化定制个案制定的认知行为疗法的选定研究,这些研究旨在减少幻觉和妄想。妄想的统计学显著效应量为0.36,幻觉的为0.44,这些效应量适中,与其他近期的荟萃分析结果一致。与积极治疗相比,针对妄想的认知行为疗法失去了统计学显著性(0.33),但针对幻觉的认知行为疗法的效应量有所增加(0.49)。盲法研究降低了妄想的效应量(0.24),并在幻觉方面有所增加(0.46)。幻觉方面不存在异质性,妄想试验中存在中度异质性。我们得出结论,认知行为疗法在治疗幻听方面是有效的。针对妄想的认知行为疗法也是有效的,但由于异质性以及与积极治疗相比效应量不显著,因此对结果的解释必须谨慎。