↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of exposure versus cognitive therapy in anxiety disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
347 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of exposure versus cognitive therapy in anxiety disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-244x-11-200
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis Ougrin

Abstract

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for a wide range of psychological disorders. There is a continued controversy about whether challenging maladaptive thoughts rather than use of behavioural interventions alone is associated with the greatest efficacy. However little is known about the relative efficacy of various components of CBT. This review aims to compare the relative efficacy of Cognitive Therapy (CT) versus Exposure (E) for a range of anxiety disorders using the most clinically relevant outcome measures and estimating the summary relative efficacy by combining the studies in a meta-analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 347 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 336 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 17%
Student > Bachelor 55 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 14%
Researcher 42 12%
Student > Postgraduate 31 9%
Other 73 21%
Unknown 40 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 204 59%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 53 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,178,821
of 18,949,038 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#375
of 3,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,711
of 233,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#7
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,949,038 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,963 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.