title: Meta-analysis of computer-aided psychotherapy: problems and partial solutions.
abstract: Meta-analysis can be valuable if it heeds its originators' caution that intimate communing with the data is essential. A critique of the authors' own meta-analysis shows that the danger of overly broad conclusions could be reduced by attention to specificities and awareness of potentially hidden sources of variance. Conclusions from even good meta-analyses are best placed in perspective, along with naturalistic reviews, open studies, and even anecdotes to yield a fair picture of what computer-aided psychotherapy or any other treatment can achieve under varying conditions. The most realistic picture comes from zooming in and out and melding meta-analyses with further types of evidence.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 43 Dulwich Common, London, UK. i.marks@iop.kcl.ac.uk
authors.forename: Isaac M
authors.initials: IM
authors.lastname: Marks
authors.forename: Pim
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Cuijpers
authors.forename: Kate
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Cavanagh
authors.forename: Annemieke
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: van Straten
authors.forename: Lina
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Gega
authors.forename: Gerhard
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Andersson
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013813:Therapy, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome