The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Tic Disorder: A Meta-Analysis and a Literature Review.
The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Tic Disorder: A Meta-Analysis and a Literature Review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.851250
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Wang J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shou S;Li Y;Fan G;Zhang Q;Yan Y;Lv T;Wang J
目前，抽动障碍已引起许多国家医学研究者的重视。由于药物治疗的认知副作用，越来越多的临床医生选择非药物治疗，尤其是认知行为治疗（CBT）。然而，很少有研究评估其有效性。有必要对认知行为疗法的文献质量及其干预效果有更全面的认识。本研究检索了MEDLINE、Embase、科克伦，检索时间从开始到2021年6月15日，以研究-CBT治疗抽动障碍的疗效。仅纳入使用耶鲁整体抽动严重程度量表（YGTSS）和对照组的研究。共有12项随机对照试验（RCT），包括536例抽动障碍患者。结果表明，认知行为疗法的效果优于对照组。合并的标准化均值差（SMD）为−0.34（95% CI：−0.61，−0.07）。不同干预条件下CBT的效应量不同。在七项研究中，受试者的运动性抽搐评分被计算在内。实验组的样本量为224人，对照组的样本量为218人。合并SMD为−0.43（95% CI：−0.75，−0.11）。7项研究统计了受试者的发声抽搐评分，实验组224人，对照组218人。合并SMD为−0.22（95% CI：−0.54，−0.11）。7项研究统计了受试者的抽动障碍评分，实验组220人，对照组214人。合并SMD为−0.48（95% CI：−0.73，−0.23）。文献显示，不同的CBT可以显著降低抽动障碍总分和运动性抽动评分，但不能显著降低发声性抽动评分。未来，需要更多新的干预措施来改善不同患者的症状，特别是发声抽动。
At present, tic disorder has attracted the attention of medical researchers in many countries. More clinicians choose non-drug therapy, especially cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) because of the cognitive side effects of drug therapy. However, few studies had assessed its efficacy. It is necessary to have a more comprehensive understanding of the literature quality of CBT and its intervention effect. In this study, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from the beginning to June 15, 2021 to study the efficacy of -CBT on tic disorder. Only studies using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) and the control group were included. A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 536 patients with tic disorders, were identified. The results showed that the effect of CBT was better than that of the control group. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was −0.34 (95% CI: −0.61, −0.07). The effect size of CBT differs from different intervention conditions. In seven studies, the subjects’ motor tic scores were counted. The sample size of the experimental group was 224 and that of the control group was 218. The pooled SMD was −0.43 (95% CI: −0.75, −0.11). Seven studies counted the vocal tic scores of subjects, 224 in the experimental group and 218 in the control group. The pooled SMD was −0.22 (95% CI: −0.54, −0.11). Seven studies counted the tic impairment scores of subjects, 220 in the experimental group and 214 in the control group. The pooled SMD was −0.48 (95% CI: −0.73, −0.23). The literature shows that different CBTs can significantly reduce the total score of tic disorder and the score of motor tic, but cannot significantly reduce the score of vocal tic. In the future, more new interventions were needed to improve the symptoms of different patients, especially vocal tic.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Roessner, Veit;Plessen, Kerstin J.;Rothenberger, Aribert;Ludolph, Andrea G.;Rizzo, Renata;Skov, Liselotte;Strand, Gerd;Stern, Jeremy S.;Termine, Cristiano;Hoekstra, Pieter J.
通讯作者：
Hoekstra, Pieter J.
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Ricketts, Emily J.;Goetz, Amy R.;Woods, Douglas W.
通讯作者：
Woods, Douglas W.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Davis, KK;Davis, JS;Dowler, L
通讯作者：
Dowler, L
DOI：
10.1016/j.jaac.2013.09.015
发表时间：
2013-12-01
影响因子：
13.3
作者：
Murphy, Tanya K.;Lewin, Adam B.;Stock, Saundra
通讯作者：
Stock, Saundra
影响因子：
9.9
作者：
Pringsheim, Tamara;Okun, Michael S.;Piacentini, John
通讯作者：
Piacentini, John