Skip to main content
. 2018 May 1;9:158. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00158

Table 3.

Distance matrixes.

Treatment (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
(A) DISTANCE MATRIX ADULT SAMPLES
(1) CAT . 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 1
(2) CBT 1 . 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2
(3) CBT&X 2 1 . 4 3 3 2 3 2 3
(4) CBTE 2 3 4 . 1 2 4 5 4 1
(5) FPT 1 2 3 1 . 1 3 4 3 1
(6) FT_AN 1 2 3 2 1 . 3 4 3 1
(7) IPT 2 1 2 4 3 3 . 2 1 3
(8) MANTRA 3 2 3 5 4 4 2 . 1 4
(9) SSCM 2 1 2 4 3 3 1 1 . 3
(10) TAU 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 4 3 .
(B) DISTANCE MATRIX ADOLESCENT SAMPLES.
(1) Complex-dh . 1 2 2 4 3 2 4 4 4
(2) Complex-ip 1 . 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 3
(3) Complex-ipS 2 1 . 2 4 3 2 4 4 4
(4) Complex-op 2 1 2 . 3 2 1 3 3 3
(5) FST 4 3 4 3 . 1 2 2 2 2
(6) FT_AN 3 2 3 2 1 . 1 1 1 1
(7) FT_AN&X 2 1 2 1 2 1 . 2 2 2
(8) FT_ANsep 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 . 2 2
(9) MFT 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 2 . 2
(10) PD&X 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 2 2 .

(A) k = 8 studies; n = 10 treatments; m = 17 pairwise comparisons; d = 7 designs; I2 = 0.8%; tau2 = 0.241, and Q = 13.9, df = 3, p = 0.0031. (B) k = 10 studies; n = 10 treatments; m = 12 pairwise comparisons; d = 8 designs; I2 = 0.8%; tau2 = 0.278, and Q = 8.12, df = 2, p = 0.0017.