Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention: Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data (events)
- Population
- people in the prodromal stage of psychosis
- Intervention
- Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention
- Comparison
- non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention
- Outcome
- Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data (events)
It is very uncertain whether group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy… changes satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data… compared with non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy + supportive intervention vs non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data (events) · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis It is very uncertain whether group C cognitive behavioural therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy… changes satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early Endpoint data… compared with non‐directive reflective listening + supportive intervention (very low certainty). Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.35 [0.81, 2.25] | 1 study · 57 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.