Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 17;2020(7):CD005331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005331.pub3

Summary of findings 1. Paradoxical intention therapy compared with diazepam.

Paradoxical intention therapy compared with diazepam for conversion disorder
Patient or population: people with conversion disorder according to DSM‐IV or ICD‐10 criteria
Settings: outpatient and inpatient
Intervention: paradoxical intention therapy
Comparison: diazepam over 45 days
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) No of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Diazepam Paradoxical intention therapy
Reduction in physical signs
(number of patients without any conversive attacks in last 2 weeks)
End of treatment
Study population RR 1.44 (0.91 to 2.28) 30
(1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b Paradoxical intention therapy may have no effect on physical signs at end of treatment.
600 per 1000 864 per 1000
(54 less to 768 more)
Level of functioning No studies assessed this outcome.
Quality of life No studies assessed this outcome.
Adverse events No studies assessed this outcome.
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; DSM‐IV:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition; ICD‐10:International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; RR: risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aDowngraded two levels due to imprecision (wide confidence intervals; based on one study with few patients).
bDowngraded one level due to high risk of bias.