Per Carlbring
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS
  • News
  • Publications
  • MSc thesis
  • Questionnaires
  • CV
  • Contact
Search the site...
  • Swedish
  • English
  • Home
  • Nyheter @en
  • Processing confusing procedures in the recent re-analysis of a cognitive bias modification (CBM) meta-analysis

Processing confusing procedures in the recent re-analysis of a cognitive bias modification (CBM) meta-analysis

Posted on 2017-11-17 by Per Carlbring in Nyheter @en
0

Those worried about the cognitive bias modification field being affected by ever-moving goal posts may have thought their concerns confirmed by Grafton and colleagues’ re-analysis of the meta-analysis by Cristea and colleagues[1,2]. The paper concludes with the suggestion that we should only call CBM CBM if it is successful. To provide a treatment-inspired analogue: “This? No, this is just water, it’s only homoeopathy if it works”.

It seems that we witness an almost prototypical disagreement between experimentalists and treatment-evaluationists about which question to ask and which data to include. Importantly, the two author groups appear quite agreed that the answer to the question ‘whether assigning an anxious individual to engage in a CBM procedure will result in direct symptom reduction’ would be ‘not likely’.

Perhaps Grafton and colleagues had better directed their critical attention towards the work by ‘field-insiders’ in which CBM is quite consistently touted as a treatment, not to mention the apparent push for clinical dissemination and premature commercial exploitation. Thus, the question meta-analysed by Cristea and colleagues, authors specialising in meta-analytical evaluation of (proposed) treatments, appears perfectly legitimate.

Grafton and colleagues’ exposé on the correct question to meta-analyse, reads uncomfortably like a perceived-damage-containing mission. The discomfort is aggravated by the presented re-analysis, applying dichotomising and partly mystifying criteria to distil a subset of eligible studies from those selected for the original meta-analysis. Specifically, the requirements for a study to pass criterion 3, “effect size computed by Cristea et al reflects legitimate bias assessed emotional vulnerability assessment” (p.268), remains unknown, as do the rules governing the final dividing criterion “intended CBM procedure successfully induced the process of bias modification” (p.268).

One could attempt to re-construct the criterion-rules from the tables provided, but it matters little. The analysis by Grafton and colleagues is flawed in a manner that must have escaped the attention of authors, reviewers, and editors alike, even after Cristea and colleagues pointed it out in their commentary[3]. To be very explicit: Grafton et al. meta-analysed the study effect-size estimates calculated by Cristea et al.

In their original paper[1], Cristea and colleagues state clearly that a) for studies reporting multiple symptom outcomes, these were averaged into a single effect-size estimate (p.8), and b) effect-size estimates reflect symptoms assessed post-training, excluding assessments following a stressor-procedure (p.9).

Based on the narrative, it appears that criterion 3 has to do with each study either a) assessing symptoms on trait (rather than state) measures, yet effect-size estimates averaging across state and trait measures were analysed, or b) employing a post-training stressor-procedure, yet symptoms assessed preceding such stressor-procedures were analysed. Surely, we are not to assume reliable retro-active impact of unannounced stressors, nor that excluding studies with state measures only, results in adjustment of state measures retained for other studies. Therefore, we must conclude that this small yet crucial detail has gone unnoticed.

A meta-analysis by Grafton and colleagues, assessing evidence for their hypotheses, could perfectly exist alongside the meta-analysis by Cristea and colleagues. The currently presented re-analysis, however, does not convince.

Text: Anne-Wil Kruijt (postdoctoral fellow Stockholm University)
& Per Carlbring. Originally published in British Journal of Psychiatry as an eLetter.
Photo: Benjamin Reay

References:
1 Cristea IA, Kok RN, Cuijpers P. Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2015; 206: 7–16.
2 Grafton B, MacLeod C, Rudaizky D, Holmes EA, Salemink E, Fox E, et al. Confusing procedures with process when appraising the impact of cognitive bias modification (CBM) on emotional vulnerability: A response to Cristea et al. (2015). Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211: 266–71.
3 Cristea IA, Kok RN, Cuijpers P. Invited commentary on … Confusing procedures with process in cognitive bias modification research†. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211: 272–3.

Link to our published eLetter:

Kruijt, A.-W. & Carlbring, P. (2017). eLetter: Processing confusing procedures in the recent re-analysis of a cognitive bias modification (CBM) meta-analysis, British Journal of Psychiatry.

Attention bias training, Just published, meta-analysis

Subscribe to my Newsletter!

Keep you up-to-date with what is happening. One mail per month.

News

  • The Future of Mental Health Treatment: Prescription Digital Therapeutics, Cyberpsychology, and Care Intelligence Solutions

    2022-04-11
  • Open PhD position in Psychology (with salary!)

    2022-03-09
  • Integrating virtual realities and psychotherapy

    2021-08-03
  • Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for depression, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder: Effectiveness and predictors of response in a teaching clinic

    2021-07-14
  • New impact factor for “my” journal

    2021-07-01
  • Dismantling, optimising, and personalising internet cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis

    2021-05-04
  • New meta-analysis on genes and psychotherapy outcome in anxiety disorders

    2021-02-25
  • The Prevalence and Clinical and Sociodemographic Factors of Problem Online Gambling: A Systematic Review

    2021-02-02
  • Online Consultations in Mental Healthcare During the Covid-19 Outbreak: An International Survey Study on Uptake and Experiences

    2020-12-17
  • NEW STUDY: How to succeed in keeping your New Year’s resolution

    2020-12-09
  • Virtual Reality exposure therapy for public speaking anxiety in routine care: a single-subject effectiveness trial

    2020-11-30
  • Sudden gains and large intersession improvements in internet-based psychodynamic treatment (IPDT) for depressed adolescents

    2020-11-30
  • Seeking neutral: A Virtual Reality-based person-identity-matching task for attentional bias modification

    2020-11-30
  • Measuring Alliance Toward Embodied Virtual Therapists in the Era of Automated Treatments

    2020-07-09
  • Measuring Alliance Toward Embodied Virtual Therapists in the Era of Automated Treatments

    2020-07-09
  • Internet Interventions for Adults with Anxiety and Mood Disorders: A Narrative Umbrella Review of Recent Meta-Analyses

    2020-05-19
  • In the Absence of Effects: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Non-response and Its Predictors in Internet-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy

    2020-05-18
  • Are physical activity and sedentary behavior related to depression?

    2020-05-13
  • Comparing internet-delivered cognitive therapy and behavior therapy with telephone support for insomnia disorder: a randomized controlled trial

    2020-04-27
  • Deposit Limit Prompt in Online Gambling for Reducing Gambling Intensity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

    2020-04-27

Popular subjects:

Anxiety Attention bias training Cancer CBT Cognitive behavior therapy cognitive flexibility Conference content analysis Depression Effectiveness Exposure therapy fMRI Gambling group therapy ICBT Internet-based treatment Internetbehandling Internet Interventions internet treatment Just published meta-analysis Negative effects Ny artikel Online gambling open access Panic disorder Ph.D. Dissertation PhD Physical activity Problem gambling Procrastination Psychometric PTSD qualitative Randomized controlled trial responsible gambling Review Smartphone @en Social anxiety social anxiety disorder social phobia Stepped care Thesis Treatment Virtual reality
Copyleft (ɔ) 2020 Professor Per Carlbring