Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:47:11.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Most psychotherapies do not really work, but those that might work should be assessed in biased studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2016

J. P. A. Ioannidis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Biasrandomised trialspsychotherapy
Type
Commentary to Special Article
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , October 2016 , pp. 436 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Begley, G, Ioannidis, JP (2015). Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Research 116 (1), 116–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuipers, P, Vanstraten, A, Warmerdam, L, Smits, N (2008). Characteristics of effective psychological treatments of depression: a metaregression analysis. Psychotherapy Research 18, (2), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuipers, P, Cristea, I (this issue). How to prove that a therapy is effective even when it is not. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Services.Google Scholar
Goodman, SN, Gerson, J (2013). Mechanistic Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine: a Conceptual Framework [Internet] . Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville.Google ScholarPubMed
Inthout, J, Ioannidis, JP, Borm, GF (2012). Obtaining evidence by a single well-powered trial or several modestly powered trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research Oct 14. [Epub ahead of print].Google ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JP (2006). Journals should publish all “null” results and should sparingly publish “positive” results. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 15, 186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JP, Munafò, MR, Fusar-Poli, P, Nosek, BA, David, SP (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Science 18, (5), 235–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munder, T, Brütsch, O, Leonhart, R, Gerger, H, Barth, J (2013). Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review 33, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naci, H, Ioannidis, JP (2015). How good is “evidence” from clinical studies of drug effects and why might such evidence fail in the prediction of the clinical utility of drugs? Annual Review on Pharmacology and Toxicology 55, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, (6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar