Corrigendum to “Psychological treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: A meta-analysis” [Clinical Psychology Review 30 (2010) 37–50]

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 815-817
Author(s):  
Julio Sánchez-Meca ◽  
Ana I. Rosa-Alcázar ◽  
Fulgencio Marín-Martínez ◽  
Antonia Gómez-Conesa
Keyword(s):  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychology Review

Psychological treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: A meta-analysis☆

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Sánchez-Meca ◽  
Ana I. Rosa-Alcázar ◽  
Fulgencio Marín-Martínez ◽  
Antonia Gómez-Conesa
Keyword(s):  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Network meta-analysis: a useful tool for comparing different psychological treatments for panic disorder?

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Katharine Smith
Keyword(s):  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Statistical Method ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Psychological Treatments ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Multiple Treatments

SUMMARYNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical method that allows comparison of multiple treatments against each other. The use of NMA, and its advantages and potential limitations, is discussed here in the context of this issue's Cochrane review of psychological treatments for panic disorder. The review showed benefits for psychological treatment when compared to a waiting list, particularly for cognitive behavioural therapy in both the short and longer term. The findings were limited by the primary studies available, but despite these, this analysis using NMA presents the best evidence to date of the relative benefits of different types of psychological treatments in panic disorder.DECLARATION OF INTERESTNone.

Chronic Pain: Fundamental Scientific Considerations, Specifically for Legal Claims

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Problematic Relationship

Abstract Scientific findings have indicated that psychological and social factors are the driving forces behind most chronic benign pain presentations, especially in a claim context, and are relevant to at least three of the AMA Guides publications: AMA Guides to Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, AMA Guides to Work Ability and Return to Work, and AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The author reviews and summarizes studies that have identified the dominant role of financial, psychological, and other non–general medicine factors in patients who report low back pain. For example, one meta-analysis found that compensation results in an increase in pain perception and a reduction in the ability to benefit from medical and psychological treatment. Other studies have found a correlation between the level of compensation and health outcomes (greater compensation is associated with worse outcomes), and legal systems that discourage compensation for pain produce better health outcomes. One study found that, among persons with carpal tunnel syndrome, claimants had worse outcomes than nonclaimants despite receiving more treatment; another examined the problematic relationship between complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and compensation and found that cases of CRPS are dominated by legal claims, a disparity that highlights the dominant role of compensation. Workers’ compensation claimants are almost never evaluated for personality disorders or mental illness. The article concludes with recommendations that evaluators can consider in individual cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document