Skip to main content

Table 4 Moderator analyses: efficacy of CBT according to study quality

From: The relative efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder: a meta-analytical evaluation of randomized controlled trials

 

Primary outcomes at follow-up

Secondary outcomes at post-treatment

Quality ratinga

k

Hedges’ g

p

k

Hedges’ g

p

0

2

0.44 [0.77, 0.13]

.006

2

0.26 [−0.14, 0.66]

.196

1

3

−0.31 [−0.57, −0.04]

.023

3

−0.43 [−0.66, −0.18]

< .001

2

4

0.09 [−0.28,0,46]

.630

4

0.21 [−0.05, 0.46]

.108

3

1

−0.09 [−0.50, 0.33]

.672

1

0.03 [−0.38, 0.44]

.882

4

4

−0.09 [−0.25, 0.07]

.252

5

0.02 [−0.11, 0.15]

.744

  1. Note. k = number of included studies. Values of Hedges’ g are presented alongside their 95 % confidence intervals. Hedges’ g > 0 signifies a higher efficacy for CBT compared to all other available treatments, Hedges’ g < 0 signifies a lower efficacy. Heterogeneity explained by quality rating in primary outcomes: QM (5) = 14.42, p = .013; residual heterogeneity: QE(9) = 10.88, p = .284; in secondary outcomes: QM(5) = 16.14, p < .001; QE(10) = 10.13, p = .429. a Quality rating according to Jadad et al. [39]