• Neil P Roberts, Neil J Kitchiner, Justin Kenardy, and Jonathan I Bisson.
• Traumatic Stress Service, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Monmouth House, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK, CF14 4XW.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17; 2010 (3): CD007944CD007944.

BackgroundThe amelioration of psychological distress following traumatic events is a major concern. Systematic reviews suggest that interventions targeted at all of those exposed to such events are not effective at preventing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Recently other forms of intervention have been developed with the aim of treating acute traumatic stress problems.ObjectivesTo perform a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of all psychological treatments and interventions commenced within three months of a traumatic event aimed at treating acute traumatic stress reactions. The review followed the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration.Search StrategySystematic searches were performed of of CCDAN Registers up to August 2008. Editions of key journals were searched by hand over a period of two years; personal communication was undertaken with key experts in the field; online discussion fora were searched.Selection CriteriaRandomised controlled trials of any psychological intervention or treatment designed to reduce acute traumatic stress symptoms, with the exception of single session interventions.Data Collection And AnalysisData were entered and analysed for summary effects using Review Manager 5.0 software. Standardised mean differences were calculated for continuous variable outcome data. Relative risks were calculated for dichotomous outcome data. When statistical heterogeneity was present a random effects model was applied.Main ResultsFifteen studies (two with long term follow-up studies) were identified examining a range of interventions.In terms of main findings, twelve studies evaluated brief trauma focused cognitive behavioural interventions (TF-CBT). TF-CBT was more effective than a waiting list intervention (6 studies, 471 participants; SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.06, -0.23) and supportive counselling (4 studies, 198 participants; SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.12, -0.23). Effects against supportive counselling were still present at 6 month follow-up (4 studies, 170 participants; SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.02, -0.25). There was no evidence of the effectiveness of a structured writing intervention when compared against minimal intervention (2 studies, 149 participants; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.48, 0.17).Authors' ConclusionsThere was evidence that individual TF-CBT was effective for individuals with acute traumatic stress symptoms compared to both waiting list and supportive counselling interventions. The quality of trials included was variable and sample sizes were often small. There was considerable clinical heterogeneity in the included studies and unexplained statistical heterogeneity observed in some comparisons. This suggests the need for caution in interpreting the results of this review. Additional high quality trials with longer follow up periods are required to further test TF-CBT and other forms of psychological intervention.

24 keywords...

hide…