CBT (plus taper) vs taper: Reduce BZDs> 50% ‐ post treatment Objective
CBT (plus taper) showed no clear difference in reduce BZDs> 50% ‐ post treatment Objective compared with taper (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
CBT (plus taper) vs taper Reduce BZDs> 50% ‐ post treatment Objective · patients with BZD harmful use, abuse or dependence CBT (plus taper) showed no clear difference in reduce BZDs> 50% ‐ post treatment Objective compared with taper (low certainty). Psychosocial interventions for benzodiazepine harmful use, abuse or dependence (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.93 [0.11, 8.18] | 3 studies · 178 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychosocial interventions for benzodiazepine harmful use, abuse or dependence 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.