Liu Shiyu, Xiao Hongqi, Duan Yingxu, Shi Lixin, Wang Ping, Cao Lingxiao, Li Hailong, Huang Xiaoqi, Qiu Changjian
Mental Health Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Sichuan Clinical Medical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Department of Radiology, Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Institution of Radiology and Medical Imaging. West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Transl Psychiatry. 2025 Jun 12;15(1):197. doi: 10.1038/s41398-025-03414-3.
To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different delivery formats of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) in treating generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science from database inception to September, 2023, to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of CBT for patients with GAD. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
Finally, 52 trials that randomized 4361 patients (mean age 43 years; 69.7% women) with generalized anxiety disorder met the inclusion criteria. The most studied treatment comparisons were individual and remote CBT versus waiting list. The quality of the evidence was typically of low or unclear risk of bias (39 out of 52 trials, 75%). The network meta-analysis including 30 studies showed that individual CBT was superior to remote CBT (SMD 0.96; 95% Cl 0.13-1.79), treatment as usual (SMD 1.12; 95% Cl 0.24-2.00) and waiting list (SMD 1.62; 95% Cl 1.03-2.22) in relieving anxiety symptoms of GAD. Group CBT (SMD 1.65; 95% Cl 0.47-2.84) was more efficacious than waiting list. Remote CBT was not superior to treatment as usual or waiting list. In terms of acceptability CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly from each other.
Our findings provide evidence for the consideration of group treatment formats as alternative to individual CBT in relieving anxiety symptoms in patients with GAD, but remote CBT may be less effective.
评估认知行为疗法(CBT)不同交付形式在治疗广泛性焦虑症(GAD)中的相对疗效和可接受性。
我们检索了从数据库建立到2023年9月的MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO和科学网,以识别针对广泛性焦虑症患者的CBT随机临床试验(RCT)。使用随机效应模型进行成对和网络荟萃分析。
最终,52项将4361例广泛性焦虑症患者(平均年龄43岁;69.7%为女性)随机分组的试验符合纳入标准。研究最多的治疗比较是个体和远程CBT与等待名单。证据质量通常为低或偏倚风险不明确(52项试验中的39项,75%)。包括30项研究的网络荟萃分析表明,个体CBT在缓解广泛性焦虑症的焦虑症状方面优于远程CBT(标准化均数差0.96;95%可信区间0.13 - 1.79)、常规治疗(标准化均数差1.12;95%可信区间0.24 - 2.00)和等待名单(标准化均数差1.62;95%可信区间1.03 - 2.22)。团体CBT(标准化均数差1.65;95%可信区间0.47 - 2.84)比等待名单更有效。远程CBT并不优于常规治疗或等待名单。在可接受性方面,CBT的交付形式之间没有显著差异。
我们的研究结果为在缓解广泛性焦虑症患者的焦虑症状时考虑将团体治疗形式作为个体CBT的替代方案提供了证据,但远程CBT可能效果较差。