Regardless of placebo effects, the authors of the meta-analysis claim that Long Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy "is significantly superior [by implication, over and above placebo] to shorter-term methods of psychotherapy with regard to overall outcome, target problems, and personality functioning".
I note that they also write: "Some of the studies included were carried out in the 1980s and some methodological shortcomings can be expected (eg, problems of randomization, allocation concealment, or observer bias)." Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to read as if there was something about the 1980s that led to there being some methodological shortcomings with these particular studies! But I suppose they are saying that it is to be expected that studies undertaken some 25 years ago would have been less sophisticated than those carried out more recently. Can anyone suggest why studies carried out in the 1980s might be expected to have some methodological shortcomings? I'm sure serious consideration of the problems involved with studies of psychotherapeutic efficacy goes back considerably further than that, given that Eysenck raised the issue in the 1950s. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
