↓ 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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 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 20 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 304 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 293 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 18%
Student > Bachelor 48 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 14%
Researcher 40 13%
Student > Postgraduate 26 9%
Other 65 21%
Unknown 26 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 182 60%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 40 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 20 December 2019.
All research outputs
#951,557
of 15,365,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#321
of 3,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,229
of 219,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#7
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,365,727 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 3,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. 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 219,089 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 133 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 94% of its contemporaries.