Skip to main content
. 2014 Nov 1;2014(11):CD011142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011142.pub2

Schröder 2013.

Methods Study design: randomised controlled trial
Participants Diagnosis: multiple somatoform symptoms
Method of diagnosis: participants ≥ 18 years of age with at least 2 somatoform symptoms according to IDCL (for DSM‐IV). For each recorded symptom, the researchers checked whether there was substantial suffering or impairment. A medical evaluation was performed by a physician to exclude medically explained symptoms
Exclusion criteria: medically explained symptoms, serious concentration or language problems, suicidal tendencies, psychotic symptoms
Total number randomised: 173 (134 actually started treatment, lower numbers in Zaby 2008)
Age: for intention‐to‐treat sample (n = 134) M = 48.02 years (SD = 12.34) (no baseline imbalances between study groups)
Sex: for intention‐to‐treat sample (n = 134) 76.9% women (n = 103), 23.1% men (n = 31) (no baseline imbalances between study groups)
Severity of symptoms at baseline: number of symptoms M = 9.9 (SD = 5.5)
Duration of symptoms at baseline: ≥ 6 months
Setting: participants were consecutively recruited in co‐operation with primary care physicians, psychotherapists, and by advertisements in local newspapers in the southwest of Germany
Treatments were conducted in the outpatient treatment centre for psychological intervention at the University of Landau and the University of Mannheim, Germany
Location: Landau and Mannheim region, Germany
Number of treatment centres: 2
Co‐morbidities:
Panic disorder: for intention‐to‐treat sample 20.1% (n = 27)
Social phobia: for intention‐to‐treat sample 9.0% (n = 12)
Specific phobia: for intention‐to‐treat sample 6.0% (n = 8)
Generalised anxiety: for intention‐to‐treat sample 10.4% (n = 14)
Major depressive disorder: for intention‐to‐treat sample 18.7% (n = 25)
Adjunctive therapy: participants were free to seek further care
Adjunctive medication: participants were free to seek further care
Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to either
1. CBT (n = 49)
Duration: manualised group training with 8 weekly sessions of 90 minutes in 8 groups of 4‐11 members
Treatment protocol: the CBT used in this study was developed on the basis of theoretical considerations (Deary et al. 2007) and standardised guidelines for psychological therapy of somatoform disorders, as published elsewhere (Rief 1999; Rief 2002; Sharpe 1992). The manual contained detailed guidelines for conducting each session. Aim of treatment was to create a model to understand bodily discomfort, with integrated biological, psychological and social factors (see Zaby 2008, table 1 for extended information about the group sessions).
Therapist: psychological psychotherapists who were supervised regularly
2. Progressive muscle relaxation (n = 41)
Duration: manualised group training with 8 weekly sessions of 90 minutes in 11 groups of 4‐11 members
Treatment protocol: the progressive muscle relaxation treatment was based on modifications of Jacobson's original program by Bernstein and Borkovec, following a manual (Zaby 2008). It involved learning to tense and relax groups of muscles beginning with a large number of small groups (in this case 16) and then proceeding in steps to a smaller number of large groups (first 7, then 4 groups) (for details, see Schröder 2013, page 299)
Therapist/face‐to‐face contact: psychological psychotherapists who were supervised regularly
3. Waiting list control (excluded from analysis, as participants in waiting list group were not randomly assigned)
Duration: NA
Treatment protocol: participants with a waiting time for the intervention longer than 4 weeks, less than 3 months were included in the waiting list group
Therapist/face‐to‐face contact: NA
Outcomes Time points for assessment: baseline, directly post‐treatment (8 weeks) and 6 months after baseline
Primary outcome:
1. Intensity and number of symptoms (SOMS‐7)
Secondary outcome:
1. Depression (HADS‐D)
2. Anxiety (HADS‐A)
3. Physical and mental health (SF‐12, PWB, and MWB subscale)
4. Medical care utilisation in previous 6 months (interview at baseline and 6 months)
Notes Date of study: participants were recruited from April 2005 until May 2006. Treatments were conducted between April 2005 and October 2008
Funding source: the study was supported by a grant awarded to Annette Schröder by the German Research Foundation (DFG)
Declarations of interest among the primary researchers: none reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Participants were randomised for CBT or PMR using random sequences, exact method not described. When both groups were full, newly included participants were included in the waiting list group. As this group was not randomly assigned we excluded data from this group from analysis
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk The randomisation was performed by a person who was not involved in assessment or treatment delivery
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Participants could not be blinded. Blinding of personnel not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Participants were not blinded, and most outcomes were participant reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk In both intervention groups 23% of participants dropped out before the first treatment (> 20%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All intended outcomes reported
Treatment fidelity Low risk CBT and PMR were conducted as a manualised group training (Schröder 2013, treatment conditions)
Researcher allegiance Low risk No indication that researchers had a preference for 1 of the treatment modalities
Other bias Unclear risk Participants were randomised for CBT or PMR. When both groups were full, newly included participants were included in the waiting list group. In a later stage, these participants were included in both intervention groups. (source: email contact with author) As participants are their own control participant due to this method, we decided to exclude data from the waiting list group from analysis