This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to pilot the newly developed manualized and monitored systemic therapy (ST) for social anxiety disorder (SAD), as compared to manualized and monitored cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). We conducted a prospective multicenter, assessor-blind pilot RCT on 38 outpatients (ICD F40.1; Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID); Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, LSAS-SR >30). The primary outcome was level of social anxiety (LSAS-SR) at the end of treatment. A total of 252 persons were screened, and 38 patients were randomized and started therapy (CBT: 20 patients; ST: 18 patients; age: M = 36 years, SD = 14). Within-group, simple-effect intent-to-treat analyses (ITT) showed significant reduction in LSAS-SR (CBT: d = 1.04; ST: d = 1.67), while ITT mixed-design ANOVA demonstrated the advantage of ST (d = 0.81). Per-protocol analyses supported these results. Remission based on reliable change indices also demonstrated significant difference (LSAS-SR: 15% in CBT; 39% in ST; h: 0.550), supported by blind diagnosticians' ratings of those who completed therapy (SCID; 45% in CBT, 78% in ST, p = .083). No adverse events were reported. CBT and ST both reduced social anxiety, supporting

<b><i>Background:</i></b> There is initial evidence for the efficacy of heart rate variability biofeedback (HRV-BF) in depression, anxiety disorders, and functional somatic syndromes. In somatic symptom disorder (SSD), evidence is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe a newly developed HRV-BF brief intervention and to analyze HRV changes, and to examine the applicability and acceptance in SSD. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We analyzed the data of the subsample of a pilot randomized controlled trial (22 subjects with SSD) who received HRV-BF over 4 sessions. We assessed HRV (SDNN: standard deviation of the NN interval, RMSSD: root mean square of successive differences between NN interval, LF: low frequency) and the subjective evaluation and acceptance of the intervention. <b><i>Results:</i></b> HRV analyses within therapy sessions showed that individuals learned to increase their HRV significantly during biofeedback sessions and were able to maintain it during self-regulation periods without feedback (SDNN, RMSSD, LF: 5.7 ≤ <i>F</i>_<i>t</i> ≤ 11.1). Moreover, HRV improved across sessions (SDNN). The majority of participants rated the intervention very positively (e.g., satisfaction, improvement in mood and physical well-being). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> HRV-BF can be learned within 4 sessions and shows positive effects in patients with SSD. Adding HRV-BF to existing treatments, e.g., psychotherapy, seems promising.

ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of individualised exercise interventions consisting with or without combined psychological intervention on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.Data sourcesFive databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Clarivate Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched up to 31 March 2021.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials were eligible if they included participants with chronic non-specific low back pain, compared at least one individualised/personalised/stratified exercise intervention with or without psychological treatment to any control / comparator group, and if they assessed at least pain intensity or disability as outcome measure.ResultsFifty-eight studies (n = 9099 patients, 44.3 years, 56% female) compared individualised to other types of exercise (n = 44; 62%), usual care (n = 16; 23%), advice to stay active, or true controls. The remaining studies had passive controls.At short-term follow-up, low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.33 [95%CI -0.47 to -0.18]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (−0.16 [-0.30 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualised exercise compared to other exercises. Very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (−0.35; [-0.53 to - 0.17])) and low-certainty evidence for disability (−0.12; [-0.22 to -0.02]) indicates effects compared to passive controls.At long-term follow-up, moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (−0.14 [-0.23 to -0.06]) and disability (−0.23 [-0.33 to -0.12]) indicates effects compared to passive controls exercises.All findings stayed below the threshold for minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Sub-group analysis of pain outcomes suggested that individualised exercise treatment is probably more effective in combination with psychological interventions (−0.32 [-0.51 to -0.14]), a clinically important differenceConclusionWe found very low to moderate-certainty evidence that individualised exercise is effective for treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain. Individualised exercise seems superior to other active treatments and sub-group analysis suggests that some forms of individualised exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) combined with behavioural therapy interventions enhances the treatment effect. Certainty of evidence was higher for long-term follow-up. In summary, individualised exercise can be recommended from a clinical point of view.

No abstract