Editing Cognitive behavioral therapy (section)

===Relative effectiveness===
The research conducted for CBT has been a topic of sustained controversy. While some researchers write that CBT is more effective than other treatments,<ref name="Tolin_2010" /> many other researchers<ref name="Barth_2013" /><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Wampold BE, Flückiger C, Del Re AC, Yulish NE, Frost ND, Pace BT, Goldberg SB, Miller SD, Baardseth TP, Laska KM, Hilsenroth MJ | display-authors = 6 | title = In pursuit of truth: A critical examination of meta-analyses of cognitive behavior therapy | journal = Psychotherapy Research | volume = 27 | issue = 1 | pages = 14–32 | date = January 2017 | pmid = 27884095 | doi = 10.1080/10503307.2016.1249433 | s2cid = 37490848 }}</ref><ref name="Baardseth_2013" /><ref name="Cuijpers_2008" /><ref name="Glenn">{{cite journal | vauthors = Glenn CR, Franklin JC, Nock MK | title = Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for self-injurious thoughts and behaviors in youth | journal = Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology | volume = 44 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–29 | year = 2014 | pmid = 25256034 | pmc = 4557625 | doi = 10.1080/15374416.2014.945211 }}</ref> and practitioners<ref name="Slife">{{cite book | vauthors = Slife BD, William RN | date = 1995 | title = What's behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences | location = Thousand Oaks, CA | publisher = Sage }}</ref><ref name="Fancher">{{cite book | vauthors = Fancher RT | date = 1995 | title = Cultures of healing: Correcting the image of American mental health care | location = New York | publisher = W. H. Freeman and Company }}</ref> have questioned the validity of such claims. For example, one study<ref name="Tolin_2010" /> determined CBT to be superior to other treatments in treating anxiety and depression. However, researchers<ref name="Baardseth_2013" /> responding directly to that study conducted a re-analysis and found no evidence of CBT being superior to other bona fide treatments and conducted an analysis of thirteen other CBT clinical trials and determined that they failed to provide evidence of CBT superiority. In cases where CBT has been reported to be statistically better than other psychological interventions in terms of primary outcome measures, effect sizes were small and suggested that those differences were clinically meaningless and insignificant. Moreover, on secondary outcomes (i.e., measures of general functioning) no significant differences have been typically found between CBT and other treatments.<ref name="Baardseth_2013" /><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Marcus DK, O'Connell D, Norris AL, Sawaqdeh A | title = Is the Dodo bird endangered in the 21st century? A meta-analysis of treatment comparison studies | journal = Clinical Psychology Review | volume = 34 | issue = 7 | pages = 519–530 | date = November 2014 | pmid = 25238455 | doi = 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.08.001 }}</ref>

A major criticism has been that clinical studies of CBT efficacy (or any psychotherapy) are not double-blind (i.e., either the subjects or the therapists in psychotherapy studies are not blind to the type of treatment). They may be single-blinded, i.e. the rater may not know the treatment the patient received, but neither the patients nor the therapists are blinded to the type of therapy given (two out of three of the persons involved in the trial, i.e., all of the persons involved in the treatment, are unblinded). The patient is an active participant in correcting negative distorted thoughts, thus quite aware of the treatment group they are in.<ref name="psychiatrictimes.com" />

The importance of double-blinding was shown in a meta-analysis that examined the effectiveness of CBT when placebo control and blindness were factored in.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lynch D, Laws KR, McKenna PJ | title = Cognitive behavioural therapy for major psychiatric disorder: does it really work? A meta-analytical review of well-controlled trials | journal = Psychological Medicine | volume = 40 | issue = 1 | pages = 9–24 | date = January 2010 | pmid = 19476688 | doi = 10.1017/S003329170900590X | doi-access = free | hdl = 2299/5741 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> Pooled data from published trials of CBT in [[schizophrenia]], [[major depressive disorder]] (MDD), and [[bipolar disorder]] that used controls for non-specific effects of intervention were analyzed. This study concluded that CBT is no better than non-specific control interventions in the treatment of schizophrenia and does not reduce relapse rates; treatment effects are small in treatment studies of MDD, and it is not an effective treatment strategy for prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. For MDD, the authors note that the pooled effect size was very low.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lincoln TM | title = Letter to the editor: a comment on Lynch et al. (2009) | journal = Psychological Medicine | volume = 40 | issue = 5 | pages = 877–880 | date = May 2010 | pmid = 19917145 | doi = 10.1017/S0033291709991838 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kingdon D | title = Over-simplification and exclusion of non-conforming studies can demonstrate absence of effect: a lynching party? | journal = Psychological Medicine | volume = 40 | issue = 1 | pages = 25–27 | date = January 2010 | pmid = 19570315 | doi = 10.1017/S0033291709990201 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Wood AM, Joseph S | title = Letter to the Editor: An agenda for the next decade of psychotherapy research and practice | journal = Psychological Medicine | volume = 40 | issue = 6 | pages = 1055–1056 | date = June 2010 | pmid = 20158935 | doi = 10.1017/S0033291710000243 | doi-access = free }}</ref>