This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
For such an important and well-studied topic, this article is a mess. Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches on how to locate secondary high quality recent reviews. There is no excuse for the random selection of primary studies used to source text throughout this article when so many high quality secondary reviews are available, nor for the severe out-of-date text in such an important topic. It appears that no one is tending to this article, and editors are using it to promote their favorite primary research, advertize products, and yet the article never covers the most important territory or most recent secondary reviews.
Worse, there is no clear explanation here of what CBT is, how it is employed, and how and why it works.
I intended to get farther along on cleaning up here, but this article is much too big of a wreck to be addressed in one setting.
Consistency and throughness in citations can be accomplished by plugging a PubMed identifier number into this template generator. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've done extensive cleanup to remove primary sources, reflect WP:MEDRS and reorganize repetitive material. The aritcle remains underdeveloped with resepct to areas where secondary reviews have a lot to say (eg, OCD), and with respect to a good description of CBT, and I didn't try to fix the History section.
Does anyone who has access to the sources know why this simple statement requires five sources?
In 1937 Abraham Low developed cognitive training techniques for patient aftercare following psychiatric hospitalization. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There are thousands of secondary reviews, compliant with WP:MEDRS, of CBT listed on PubMed; here is a small sample of those reviews that are freely available, recent, and can be used for the complete rewrite needed here.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Here are some that are not freely available, but may be useful if someone can get hold of them:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There are many many more where those came from: this article is seriously outdated, in need of expansion, and in a state of disrepair. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Just combined you list of PubMed CBT Review list to tthe Reviews from my private CBT collection to create a new Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) Review collection it may help dolfrog ( talk) 12:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one has invoked Cochrane yet.... aaargh, 111 to wade through! Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The only tertiary source I could find is by INSERM. We are currently having a discussion about it's validity elsewhere on this discussion page but I also made a chart reflecting it. Specifically for CBT it used 31 meta-reviews and 19 control trials.
The basis for chart in the study be seen here
Disease or condition | Effectiveness of psychotherapy treatment in adults
( -Proven, -Presumed, -No effect) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Psychoanalysis | Cognitive behavioral therapy | Family or couple therapy | |||
Schizophrenia (acute phase, with medical drugs) | |||||
Schizophrenia (stabilized, with medical drugs) | |||||
Depression (hospitalised on antidepressants) | |||||
Moderate depression | |||||
Bipolar disorder (with medical drugs) | |||||
Panic disorder (with anti-depressants) | |||||
Post-traumatic stress | |||||
Anxiety disorders (GAD, OCD, phobias) | |||||
Bulimia | |||||
Anorexia | |||||
Personality disorders | |||||
Alcohol dependency |
CartoonDiablo ( talk) 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this because it isn't possible to constitute the hole field of reserch in effevtivness in only one table mirroring only one govermental survey. I read WP:MEDRS but I didn't found the point which approve this precede. If you only pick one survey in a field of hundreds of studys, metastudys, reviews & surveys and think this is NPOV I'm sure this gonna be a long discussion. WSC ® 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A word on citations
Ok, Diablo, you say, for example, "were made after the 2004". Is it imaginable for you, it's unserious to cite only one ten year old study as only fact, when you now know there were subsequent efforts with additionally results? Or is your only intention to increase the importance of this little study? -- WSC ® 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything I read about CBT extols its virtues but I can find little comment here on whether it's effectiveness is limited and under what circumstances. Yet I do remember reading isolated articles to that effect in the past.
Yes, the article lists a number of psychological problems that CBT is successful with but this is a sales approach. A scientific approach would be to lay out those areas where success has been achieved (and to what degree) and those where it has not.
Is CBT less effective for some people than for others? Does success may vary according to such factors as education level, or age or gender?
The article would appear to be more balanced if such questions were granted a separate section and were at least posed, even if (in the current atmosphere of wild enthusiasm for CBT) they haven't been answered yet.
As with all Wikipedia articles, I admire the care and work that has already gone into preparing what is here. Thanks -- 174.7.29.185 ( talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"It was during the period 1950 to 1970 that behavioral therapy became widely utilized by researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, who were inspired by the behaviorist learning theory of Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and Clark L. Hull".
Pavlov's theory can by no means be labeled as behaviorist. Although Watson based his theory (Behaviorism) on Pavlov's research, Pavlov himself was not a behaviorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.165.103 ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be a lot more balance, and space for divergent opinions about and critique of for article to be considered valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.15.150 ( talk) 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
They’re should be much more critiquing of CBT particularly the INSERM meta-analysis which is allowed to go entirely unchallenged here and I don’t see how the opinions of Oliver James can be termed 'any old criticism'??? I haven’t the time to spend researching scholarly articles but at least adding the Oliver James ( a well known psychologist, journalist, author, commentator) quote at least adds some balance. Also to state without caveat that CBT simply *is* an effective for the treatment implies that it is incontrovertibly so. This does not keep with wiki standards of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.219.191 ( talk) 23:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The table about the effectivness of psychotherapy is POV. My arguments are listed here. The tabel must be removed. I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased. -- WSC ® 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I chimed in earlier in support of CartoonDiablo. I just don't see what Widescreen's reasoning is, other than an arbitrary rejection of a rather good meta-study. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The content is neutral, but the size is a bit much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, really?! What makes you belive this? Your expertise of psychotherapy research? -- WSC ® 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
After the table was erased, I thought maybe I can help you to phrase a chapter about the evaluation of efficacy of cbt. I can help you to find sources or classify them. I got a lot of knowledge about this special research area. If you want? -- WSC ® 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Evaluation of effectiveness
According to a 2004 French government study conducted by INSERM, Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy.
The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies to find some level of effectiveness that was either "proven" or "presumed" to exist. Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency.
I just underlined all wrong statments. -- WSC ® 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I've been to WP:DRM so I know a few things about it. First, it's not binding. Second, it doesn't replace consensus. Third, it's often completely worthless. I suggest you try WP:RFC, with the options being:
Try that. But until then, leave that part of the article alone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, but I hadn't much time. What's wrong with the passage?
But the important thing is, you have to expain the reader, that this single study does't explain the hole field of psychotherapy research. And why, in gods name, we choose this study for our articles.
Don't get me wrong. I know CBT got much more assured efficacys. But guys like CD doesn't know, becuse they only know ONE singel Study. -- WSC ® 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Widescreen, these were answered. Please stop edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
See latest discussion here. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 23:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Textpassage is still deficient. After CartoonDiablo add some more studies the heading is no longer fallacious. But the rest of my criticism is still current:
There was been add a picture what replaces the table just been removed. You can't take Picture of the table seriously. This Picture of the table can't be found at the source so he was homemade by the user. The question is: Why was this special Table selected? I know much better studies wich also have tables and beeing much more cited by other scientists than this special survey was. I claim that this table was selected and refused by a picture shows the same as the table, to overstate the efficacy of CBT. The results of psychotherapy research as not as simple the table/picture suggest. If you wan't a pretty good chapter about the efficacy you have to give futher explanations. -- WSC ® 17:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know what's going on at arbcom? I intend to change the text in all articles like I described it above. Any oppositions? -- WSC ® 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
After the arbcom closed the case, it's necessary to change the wrong text about the survey first.
My next proposal is to use textbooks about efficacy, CBT or Clinical Psychology/Psychiatry which includes a OVERLOOK about the hole field of psychotherapy research. That should be a tertiery source, as cartoonDiabolo requires in the beginning of discussion. I hope, CartoonDiablo will accept this proposal. I think CartoonDiabolos overstating of this single study is caused in a keen to overstate the meaning of CBT. A paradigm in psychology which was foundet by Noam Chomsky the user state he's a fan of. But it's not impossible to have a serious collaboration in spite of that fact. The efficacy of CBT is well evaluated and it's possible to go back to many high-quality sources. It doesn't hurt that there are multiple textbook sources too. The more we have the more we can talk about a real NPOV. -- WSC ® 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Now we shoud search for reliabel sources to have a foundation. Because of the abundance of reliable sources it's necessary to compile selection criterias. My suggestions: 1. Overviews about which we can classify as tertiary sources. That means a overview about the field of studies and meta-studies. 2. High citatiations on google-scholar or other datatbases. 3. The period of publishing to exclude older releases. I would suggest not oder than five years? That means not older than 2007 or 2008. Since this time, a lot of studies were published.
As access to the issue. --
WSC
® 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In the section "Specific applications" there's this sentence:
"In the case of metastatic breast cancer, a Cochrane Review published in 2008 maintained that the current body of evidence is not sufficient to rule out the possibility that psychological interventions may cause harm to women with this advanced neoplasm."
I find this sentence extremely complicated. What does it even mean? Does it mean that CBT is good for breast cancer victims or that it's not? A case study has shown that the current body of knowledge is not sufficient to rule out something? To me, that sentence has too many negatives in it. It may be that I'm not a native English speaker but I've read the sentence five times and I still don't understand if the study indicated that CBT helps breast cancer patients or is dangerous. Also, what is meant by psychological interventions? Is CBT a psychological intervention, or is it more like traumas, to which CBT is supposed to help? If it means that psychological treatment in general hurts people with breast cancer, what has that got to do with CBT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.151.155 ( talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Denial of the subconscious mind was a strong belief among CBT believers, though as they catch up to the neurological research done in the last few decades that makes this claim more and more laughable I see it being brought up less. It would be nice if this article had some coverage of that, it's a major part of their evolving philosophy, and there are still today CBT centric grad students coming out with a conviction that the subconscious mind either doesn't exist as the mainstream thinks it does, or has no affect on a person's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.57.220 ( talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This section has been blanked as a courtesy. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Section on meta analyses of CBT for schizophrenia states "Several meta-analyses have shown CBT to be effective in schizophrenia,[34][56]" - only the Wykes et al is a meta analysis - the other paper is not and should be removed or replaced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.160.194 ( talk) 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like readers need to get a better understanding of what cognitive distortions is rather than just stating it, it should be described/defined a little bit more of what cognitive distortions really is. -- Patel Zeel ( talk) 05:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I will be chipping away at fixing the lead section of this article. There are some slight, but significant confusions. One example, that I already removed, was the sentence that originally read, "The name refers to behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, and therapy based upon a combination of basic behavioral and cognitive principles and research." This is not an accurate representation because CBT is not based off of principles and research. It is based off of theoretical principles and assumptions, and the research merely validates if these assumptions are effective in therapy. To a well-seasoned practitioner, this is miniscule. To a person with no Psych background, seeking CBT therapy for the first time, that would be significantly misleading. It's basic quibbles and nuances like these that need revision. Feel free to check my work and contribute thoughts as I work it through. I will also post a reply here when I feel I have finished with my revisions. Urstadt ( talk) 09:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
CBT is not a medicine. It is a theoretical practice that makes assumptions about what causes human suffering and makes corresponding assumptiond about how to alleviate symptoms. To put any psychotherapy in the same category as a medicine is very misleading. In fact, psychotherapists are ethically obligated to inform clients and patients via a signed Informed Consent that these therapies are not the same as medicine. For more information, please see What's Behind the Research? Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the Behavioral Sciences by Slife and Williams. Urstadt ( talk) 03:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous user changed a quote in the first two lines of the lead section to read: "structured, short-term, research-based psychotherapy system for a wide range of psychiatric and psychological problems..."[1] However, this is not what the author says in Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Basics and Beyond. So, I undid the change. Here is a link to a scanned image of the page quoted in the first two lines of the lead section. Urstadt ( talk) 03:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first edit on Wikipedia so I apologize in advance for any mistakes I make or even if the changes I suggest sounds ridiculous. I noticed that in the medical use for cognitive behavioral therapy that eating disorders appears over and over again. I wished to add something to the criticism section about that use of cognitive behavioral therapy and this therapy's problem with drop out rates. I will focus on use of cognitive-behavioral therapy to treat anorexia nervosa and how the success rates are not necessarily the highest. Here is my suggested change:
This high drop-out rate is particular evident in the treatment of anorexia nervosa, a eating disorder commonly treated by cognitive behavioral treatment. A considerable percent of patients either drop out of therapy and often revert back to their aneroxia behaviors before completing the therapy. [6]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
I feel that it is important to show an example of drop out rates because this type of therapy is consistently suggested to treat this kind of disorder. I feel that people need to be aware that there are studies that show drop out rates are substantial high for certain disorders in relation to this therapy, with people experiencing anorexia nervosa being one of the highest drop out rates. Streakz95 ( talk) 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There are issues with this "is a "structured, short-term, present-oriented psychotherapy for depression, directed toward solving current problems and modifying dysfunctional (inaccurate and/or unhelpful) thinking and behavior."
Thus restored " is a short-term psychotherapy used in a number of mental illnesses" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We should paraphrase the definition not quote it and refs go after punctuation. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Computerized CBT (CCBT) has been proven to be effective by randomized controlled and other trials in treating depression and anxiety disorders,[24][26][48][49][50][51][52] including children,[53] as well as insomnia.[54] Some research has found similar effectiveness to an intervention of informational websites and weekly telephone calls.[55][56] CCBT was found to be equally effective as face-to-face CBT in adolescent anxiety[57] and insomnia.[54]
WP:MEDPRI would apply, no? Ssscienccce ( talk) 19:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I continue to be troubled by the verbiage on this page referring to CBT as a medicine and/or having medical uses. I feel it is not representative of what CBT truly is. As a therapist, I am ethically obligated to inform my clients that these, and other, interventions are not "medicines", "cures", or anything of the sorts. CBT is merely a theory of what causes human suffering and one plausible way to alleviate it. This is actually well-documented within the APA. I fear that clients unfamiliar with it might with read this page and come to a CBT therapist with unreasonable expectations. A recent meta-analysis out of Norway, documenting the consistent decline in CBT effectiveness since 1978, proposed clients' excess expectations as one reason for its decline. What are the thoughts of the community anent this? Urstadt ( talk) 20:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Cognitive behavioral therapy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cognitive behavioral therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I a adding some references from 2017 where I think they support existing statements. I welcome your feedback. I am new at this LadyArwen2226 ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We need a better description and citation for this. I do not have time to compose it now, but here are links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866254/ https://iacp.memberclicks.net/assets/CBTBR/cbtbr-vol_311c.pdf https://books.google.com/books?id=1_NcsDZ17icC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false] Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 07:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems that CBT is an umbrella term for a number of cognitive and behavioural techniques used for treatment of psychological disorders. This article as it currently stands switches between talking about Beck's CBT and the more general umbrella term of cognitive behaviour(al) therapies.
For example:
Similar in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, they discuss cognitive behaviour therapies/CBTs as un umbrella term... "cognitive therapy, rational emotive behaviour therapy, problem‐solving therapy, self‐control therapy, a coping with depression course and other CBTs."... then talk about third wave CBTs.
Lots more examples in the literature. Its bothered me for some time. Not sure how to handle it.
Notgain ( talk) 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion or link to TF-CBT is currently missing from this article. Notgain ( talk) 12:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Currently the article does not distinguish very well between Beck's CBT and other models of cognitive and behavioural therapies, such as REBT. Notgain ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The article currently says, "Several meta-analyses have suggested that CBT is effective in schizophrenia". I understand that is is recommended as an addon to standard care for schizophrenia by NICE but it should be noted that Cochrane review reported CBT had "no effect on long‐term risk of relapse". There was no evidence that CBT had an additional effect above standard care. [1] No firm conclusions can be made until further data is available. The article should reflect this. Notgain ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
I was unable to find high quality reviews to fully support these statements in the lead third paragraph: "When compared to psychoactive medications, review studies have found CBT alone to be as effective for treating less severe forms of depression and anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder(PTSD), tics, substance abuse, eating disorders and borderline personality disorder.[citation needed] It is often recommended in combination with medications for treating other conditions, such as severe obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and major depressive disorder, opioid use disorder, bipolar disorder and psychotic disorders.[citation needed]" For example, in the first sentence I have not seen any high quality evidence to support or refute the claim that CBT is more effective for PTSD alone compared to when CBT treatment is combined with medication. [1] Gartlehner et al (2017) found moderate evidence that CBT in treatment of MDD may have similar effect as (2nd gen) anti-depressants: [2] As far as I am aware with tics, the CBT approach has been shown in meta-analysis to have a similar effect size to anti-psychotic medication [3] Not sure about borderline personality disorder. Notgain ( talk) 11:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
A new section called Socio-political concerns has been added by Redwaterjug. As it stands, it doesn't clearly state what the actual critique is supposed to be. Also, one of the sources seems to be someone's personal blog. What do other people think? Should this section stay?-- Megaman en m ( talk) 18:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I have edited the drop out rates section as the referenced meta analysis only showed CBT having a 17% higher drop out rate, not the five times higher that was claimed previously. If someone has a source for the five times higher please add it before reverting Abram-sha ( talk) 06:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The section under Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Medical_uses is a mess. Can the section introduction get more focus or move some of the content into subsections? Honestly I'd probably just suggest cutting a good amount of it out to maintain more focus and readability. Thinking to tag it with some template but adding a section here for notice also in case there needs to be discussion around adding the template. Shaded0 ( talk) 04:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the schizophrenia section under "Medical uses" sorta contradictory? It states "Several meta-analyses suggested that CBT is effective in schizophrenia" but right after it says "Cochrane reviews reported CBT had "no effect on long‐term risk of relapse" and no evidence that CBT had an additional effect above standard care" along with "...determined that there's no clear advantage over other, often less expensive interventions...". It might be me misunderstanding it but the first quote says it's effective, the second says it's not. So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxGame5o ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LadyArwen2226.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
For such an important and well-studied topic, this article is a mess. Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches on how to locate secondary high quality recent reviews. There is no excuse for the random selection of primary studies used to source text throughout this article when so many high quality secondary reviews are available, nor for the severe out-of-date text in such an important topic. It appears that no one is tending to this article, and editors are using it to promote their favorite primary research, advertize products, and yet the article never covers the most important territory or most recent secondary reviews.
Worse, there is no clear explanation here of what CBT is, how it is employed, and how and why it works.
I intended to get farther along on cleaning up here, but this article is much too big of a wreck to be addressed in one setting.
Consistency and throughness in citations can be accomplished by plugging a PubMed identifier number into this template generator. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've done extensive cleanup to remove primary sources, reflect WP:MEDRS and reorganize repetitive material. The aritcle remains underdeveloped with resepct to areas where secondary reviews have a lot to say (eg, OCD), and with respect to a good description of CBT, and I didn't try to fix the History section.
Does anyone who has access to the sources know why this simple statement requires five sources?
In 1937 Abraham Low developed cognitive training techniques for patient aftercare following psychiatric hospitalization. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There are thousands of secondary reviews, compliant with WP:MEDRS, of CBT listed on PubMed; here is a small sample of those reviews that are freely available, recent, and can be used for the complete rewrite needed here.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Here are some that are not freely available, but may be useful if someone can get hold of them:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There are many many more where those came from: this article is seriously outdated, in need of expansion, and in a state of disrepair. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Just combined you list of PubMed CBT Review list to tthe Reviews from my private CBT collection to create a new Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) Review collection it may help dolfrog ( talk) 12:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one has invoked Cochrane yet.... aaargh, 111 to wade through! Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The only tertiary source I could find is by INSERM. We are currently having a discussion about it's validity elsewhere on this discussion page but I also made a chart reflecting it. Specifically for CBT it used 31 meta-reviews and 19 control trials.
The basis for chart in the study be seen here
Disease or condition | Effectiveness of psychotherapy treatment in adults
( -Proven, -Presumed, -No effect) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Psychoanalysis | Cognitive behavioral therapy | Family or couple therapy | |||
Schizophrenia (acute phase, with medical drugs) | |||||
Schizophrenia (stabilized, with medical drugs) | |||||
Depression (hospitalised on antidepressants) | |||||
Moderate depression | |||||
Bipolar disorder (with medical drugs) | |||||
Panic disorder (with anti-depressants) | |||||
Post-traumatic stress | |||||
Anxiety disorders (GAD, OCD, phobias) | |||||
Bulimia | |||||
Anorexia | |||||
Personality disorders | |||||
Alcohol dependency |
CartoonDiablo ( talk) 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this because it isn't possible to constitute the hole field of reserch in effevtivness in only one table mirroring only one govermental survey. I read WP:MEDRS but I didn't found the point which approve this precede. If you only pick one survey in a field of hundreds of studys, metastudys, reviews & surveys and think this is NPOV I'm sure this gonna be a long discussion. WSC ® 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A word on citations
Ok, Diablo, you say, for example, "were made after the 2004". Is it imaginable for you, it's unserious to cite only one ten year old study as only fact, when you now know there were subsequent efforts with additionally results? Or is your only intention to increase the importance of this little study? -- WSC ® 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything I read about CBT extols its virtues but I can find little comment here on whether it's effectiveness is limited and under what circumstances. Yet I do remember reading isolated articles to that effect in the past.
Yes, the article lists a number of psychological problems that CBT is successful with but this is a sales approach. A scientific approach would be to lay out those areas where success has been achieved (and to what degree) and those where it has not.
Is CBT less effective for some people than for others? Does success may vary according to such factors as education level, or age or gender?
The article would appear to be more balanced if such questions were granted a separate section and were at least posed, even if (in the current atmosphere of wild enthusiasm for CBT) they haven't been answered yet.
As with all Wikipedia articles, I admire the care and work that has already gone into preparing what is here. Thanks -- 174.7.29.185 ( talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"It was during the period 1950 to 1970 that behavioral therapy became widely utilized by researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, who were inspired by the behaviorist learning theory of Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and Clark L. Hull".
Pavlov's theory can by no means be labeled as behaviorist. Although Watson based his theory (Behaviorism) on Pavlov's research, Pavlov himself was not a behaviorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.165.103 ( talk) 05:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be a lot more balance, and space for divergent opinions about and critique of for article to be considered valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.15.150 ( talk) 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
They’re should be much more critiquing of CBT particularly the INSERM meta-analysis which is allowed to go entirely unchallenged here and I don’t see how the opinions of Oliver James can be termed 'any old criticism'??? I haven’t the time to spend researching scholarly articles but at least adding the Oliver James ( a well known psychologist, journalist, author, commentator) quote at least adds some balance. Also to state without caveat that CBT simply *is* an effective for the treatment implies that it is incontrovertibly so. This does not keep with wiki standards of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.219.191 ( talk) 23:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The table about the effectivness of psychotherapy is POV. My arguments are listed here. The tabel must be removed. I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased. -- WSC ® 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I chimed in earlier in support of CartoonDiablo. I just don't see what Widescreen's reasoning is, other than an arbitrary rejection of a rather good meta-study. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The content is neutral, but the size is a bit much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, really?! What makes you belive this? Your expertise of psychotherapy research? -- WSC ® 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
After the table was erased, I thought maybe I can help you to phrase a chapter about the evaluation of efficacy of cbt. I can help you to find sources or classify them. I got a lot of knowledge about this special research area. If you want? -- WSC ® 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Evaluation of effectiveness
According to a 2004 French government study conducted by INSERM, Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy.
The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies to find some level of effectiveness that was either "proven" or "presumed" to exist. Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency.
I just underlined all wrong statments. -- WSC ® 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I've been to WP:DRM so I know a few things about it. First, it's not binding. Second, it doesn't replace consensus. Third, it's often completely worthless. I suggest you try WP:RFC, with the options being:
Try that. But until then, leave that part of the article alone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, but I hadn't much time. What's wrong with the passage?
But the important thing is, you have to expain the reader, that this single study does't explain the hole field of psychotherapy research. And why, in gods name, we choose this study for our articles.
Don't get me wrong. I know CBT got much more assured efficacys. But guys like CD doesn't know, becuse they only know ONE singel Study. -- WSC ® 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Widescreen, these were answered. Please stop edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
See latest discussion here. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 23:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Textpassage is still deficient. After CartoonDiablo add some more studies the heading is no longer fallacious. But the rest of my criticism is still current:
There was been add a picture what replaces the table just been removed. You can't take Picture of the table seriously. This Picture of the table can't be found at the source so he was homemade by the user. The question is: Why was this special Table selected? I know much better studies wich also have tables and beeing much more cited by other scientists than this special survey was. I claim that this table was selected and refused by a picture shows the same as the table, to overstate the efficacy of CBT. The results of psychotherapy research as not as simple the table/picture suggest. If you wan't a pretty good chapter about the efficacy you have to give futher explanations. -- WSC ® 17:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know what's going on at arbcom? I intend to change the text in all articles like I described it above. Any oppositions? -- WSC ® 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
After the arbcom closed the case, it's necessary to change the wrong text about the survey first.
My next proposal is to use textbooks about efficacy, CBT or Clinical Psychology/Psychiatry which includes a OVERLOOK about the hole field of psychotherapy research. That should be a tertiery source, as cartoonDiabolo requires in the beginning of discussion. I hope, CartoonDiablo will accept this proposal. I think CartoonDiabolos overstating of this single study is caused in a keen to overstate the meaning of CBT. A paradigm in psychology which was foundet by Noam Chomsky the user state he's a fan of. But it's not impossible to have a serious collaboration in spite of that fact. The efficacy of CBT is well evaluated and it's possible to go back to many high-quality sources. It doesn't hurt that there are multiple textbook sources too. The more we have the more we can talk about a real NPOV. -- WSC ® 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Now we shoud search for reliabel sources to have a foundation. Because of the abundance of reliable sources it's necessary to compile selection criterias. My suggestions: 1. Overviews about which we can classify as tertiary sources. That means a overview about the field of studies and meta-studies. 2. High citatiations on google-scholar or other datatbases. 3. The period of publishing to exclude older releases. I would suggest not oder than five years? That means not older than 2007 or 2008. Since this time, a lot of studies were published.
As access to the issue. --
WSC
® 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In the section "Specific applications" there's this sentence:
"In the case of metastatic breast cancer, a Cochrane Review published in 2008 maintained that the current body of evidence is not sufficient to rule out the possibility that psychological interventions may cause harm to women with this advanced neoplasm."
I find this sentence extremely complicated. What does it even mean? Does it mean that CBT is good for breast cancer victims or that it's not? A case study has shown that the current body of knowledge is not sufficient to rule out something? To me, that sentence has too many negatives in it. It may be that I'm not a native English speaker but I've read the sentence five times and I still don't understand if the study indicated that CBT helps breast cancer patients or is dangerous. Also, what is meant by psychological interventions? Is CBT a psychological intervention, or is it more like traumas, to which CBT is supposed to help? If it means that psychological treatment in general hurts people with breast cancer, what has that got to do with CBT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.151.155 ( talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Denial of the subconscious mind was a strong belief among CBT believers, though as they catch up to the neurological research done in the last few decades that makes this claim more and more laughable I see it being brought up less. It would be nice if this article had some coverage of that, it's a major part of their evolving philosophy, and there are still today CBT centric grad students coming out with a conviction that the subconscious mind either doesn't exist as the mainstream thinks it does, or has no affect on a person's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.57.220 ( talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This section has been blanked as a courtesy. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Section on meta analyses of CBT for schizophrenia states "Several meta-analyses have shown CBT to be effective in schizophrenia,[34][56]" - only the Wykes et al is a meta analysis - the other paper is not and should be removed or replaced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.160.194 ( talk) 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like readers need to get a better understanding of what cognitive distortions is rather than just stating it, it should be described/defined a little bit more of what cognitive distortions really is. -- Patel Zeel ( talk) 05:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I will be chipping away at fixing the lead section of this article. There are some slight, but significant confusions. One example, that I already removed, was the sentence that originally read, "The name refers to behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, and therapy based upon a combination of basic behavioral and cognitive principles and research." This is not an accurate representation because CBT is not based off of principles and research. It is based off of theoretical principles and assumptions, and the research merely validates if these assumptions are effective in therapy. To a well-seasoned practitioner, this is miniscule. To a person with no Psych background, seeking CBT therapy for the first time, that would be significantly misleading. It's basic quibbles and nuances like these that need revision. Feel free to check my work and contribute thoughts as I work it through. I will also post a reply here when I feel I have finished with my revisions. Urstadt ( talk) 09:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
CBT is not a medicine. It is a theoretical practice that makes assumptions about what causes human suffering and makes corresponding assumptiond about how to alleviate symptoms. To put any psychotherapy in the same category as a medicine is very misleading. In fact, psychotherapists are ethically obligated to inform clients and patients via a signed Informed Consent that these therapies are not the same as medicine. For more information, please see What's Behind the Research? Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the Behavioral Sciences by Slife and Williams. Urstadt ( talk) 03:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous user changed a quote in the first two lines of the lead section to read: "structured, short-term, research-based psychotherapy system for a wide range of psychiatric and psychological problems..."[1] However, this is not what the author says in Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Basics and Beyond. So, I undid the change. Here is a link to a scanned image of the page quoted in the first two lines of the lead section. Urstadt ( talk) 03:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first edit on Wikipedia so I apologize in advance for any mistakes I make or even if the changes I suggest sounds ridiculous. I noticed that in the medical use for cognitive behavioral therapy that eating disorders appears over and over again. I wished to add something to the criticism section about that use of cognitive behavioral therapy and this therapy's problem with drop out rates. I will focus on use of cognitive-behavioral therapy to treat anorexia nervosa and how the success rates are not necessarily the highest. Here is my suggested change:
This high drop-out rate is particular evident in the treatment of anorexia nervosa, a eating disorder commonly treated by cognitive behavioral treatment. A considerable percent of patients either drop out of therapy and often revert back to their aneroxia behaviors before completing the therapy. [6]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
I feel that it is important to show an example of drop out rates because this type of therapy is consistently suggested to treat this kind of disorder. I feel that people need to be aware that there are studies that show drop out rates are substantial high for certain disorders in relation to this therapy, with people experiencing anorexia nervosa being one of the highest drop out rates. Streakz95 ( talk) 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There are issues with this "is a "structured, short-term, present-oriented psychotherapy for depression, directed toward solving current problems and modifying dysfunctional (inaccurate and/or unhelpful) thinking and behavior."
Thus restored " is a short-term psychotherapy used in a number of mental illnesses" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We should paraphrase the definition not quote it and refs go after punctuation. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Computerized CBT (CCBT) has been proven to be effective by randomized controlled and other trials in treating depression and anxiety disorders,[24][26][48][49][50][51][52] including children,[53] as well as insomnia.[54] Some research has found similar effectiveness to an intervention of informational websites and weekly telephone calls.[55][56] CCBT was found to be equally effective as face-to-face CBT in adolescent anxiety[57] and insomnia.[54]
WP:MEDPRI would apply, no? Ssscienccce ( talk) 19:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I continue to be troubled by the verbiage on this page referring to CBT as a medicine and/or having medical uses. I feel it is not representative of what CBT truly is. As a therapist, I am ethically obligated to inform my clients that these, and other, interventions are not "medicines", "cures", or anything of the sorts. CBT is merely a theory of what causes human suffering and one plausible way to alleviate it. This is actually well-documented within the APA. I fear that clients unfamiliar with it might with read this page and come to a CBT therapist with unreasonable expectations. A recent meta-analysis out of Norway, documenting the consistent decline in CBT effectiveness since 1978, proposed clients' excess expectations as one reason for its decline. What are the thoughts of the community anent this? Urstadt ( talk) 20:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Cognitive behavioral therapy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cognitive behavioral therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I a adding some references from 2017 where I think they support existing statements. I welcome your feedback. I am new at this LadyArwen2226 ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We need a better description and citation for this. I do not have time to compose it now, but here are links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866254/ https://iacp.memberclicks.net/assets/CBTBR/cbtbr-vol_311c.pdf https://books.google.com/books?id=1_NcsDZ17icC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false] Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 07:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems that CBT is an umbrella term for a number of cognitive and behavioural techniques used for treatment of psychological disorders. This article as it currently stands switches between talking about Beck's CBT and the more general umbrella term of cognitive behaviour(al) therapies.
For example:
Similar in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, they discuss cognitive behaviour therapies/CBTs as un umbrella term... "cognitive therapy, rational emotive behaviour therapy, problem‐solving therapy, self‐control therapy, a coping with depression course and other CBTs."... then talk about third wave CBTs.
Lots more examples in the literature. Its bothered me for some time. Not sure how to handle it.
Notgain ( talk) 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion or link to TF-CBT is currently missing from this article. Notgain ( talk) 12:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Currently the article does not distinguish very well between Beck's CBT and other models of cognitive and behavioural therapies, such as REBT. Notgain ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The article currently says, "Several meta-analyses have suggested that CBT is effective in schizophrenia". I understand that is is recommended as an addon to standard care for schizophrenia by NICE but it should be noted that Cochrane review reported CBT had "no effect on long‐term risk of relapse". There was no evidence that CBT had an additional effect above standard care. [1] No firm conclusions can be made until further data is available. The article should reflect this. Notgain ( talk) 13:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
I was unable to find high quality reviews to fully support these statements in the lead third paragraph: "When compared to psychoactive medications, review studies have found CBT alone to be as effective for treating less severe forms of depression and anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder(PTSD), tics, substance abuse, eating disorders and borderline personality disorder.[citation needed] It is often recommended in combination with medications for treating other conditions, such as severe obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and major depressive disorder, opioid use disorder, bipolar disorder and psychotic disorders.[citation needed]" For example, in the first sentence I have not seen any high quality evidence to support or refute the claim that CBT is more effective for PTSD alone compared to when CBT treatment is combined with medication. [1] Gartlehner et al (2017) found moderate evidence that CBT in treatment of MDD may have similar effect as (2nd gen) anti-depressants: [2] As far as I am aware with tics, the CBT approach has been shown in meta-analysis to have a similar effect size to anti-psychotic medication [3] Not sure about borderline personality disorder. Notgain ( talk) 11:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
A new section called Socio-political concerns has been added by Redwaterjug. As it stands, it doesn't clearly state what the actual critique is supposed to be. Also, one of the sources seems to be someone's personal blog. What do other people think? Should this section stay?-- Megaman en m ( talk) 18:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I have edited the drop out rates section as the referenced meta analysis only showed CBT having a 17% higher drop out rate, not the five times higher that was claimed previously. If someone has a source for the five times higher please add it before reverting Abram-sha ( talk) 06:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The section under Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Medical_uses is a mess. Can the section introduction get more focus or move some of the content into subsections? Honestly I'd probably just suggest cutting a good amount of it out to maintain more focus and readability. Thinking to tag it with some template but adding a section here for notice also in case there needs to be discussion around adding the template. Shaded0 ( talk) 04:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the schizophrenia section under "Medical uses" sorta contradictory? It states "Several meta-analyses suggested that CBT is effective in schizophrenia" but right after it says "Cochrane reviews reported CBT had "no effect on long‐term risk of relapse" and no evidence that CBT had an additional effect above standard care" along with "...determined that there's no clear advantage over other, often less expensive interventions...". It might be me misunderstanding it but the first quote says it's effective, the second says it's not. So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxGame5o ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LadyArwen2226.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)