Home Current Issue Previous Issues Published Ahead-of-Print CME For Authors Journal Info
Skip Navigation LinksHome > May/June 2013 - Volume 21 - Issue 3 > The Current State of the Empirical Evidence for Psychoanalys...
Text sizing:
Harvard Review of Psychiatry:
doi: 10.1097/HRP.0b013e318294f5fd

The Current State of the Empirical Evidence for Psychoanalysis: A Meta-analytic Approach

de Maat, Saskia PhD; de Jonghe, Frans PhD; de Kraker, Ruth MSc; Leichsenring, Falk PhD; Abbass, Allan MD; Luyten, Patrick PhD; Barber, Jacques P. PhD; Van, Rien MD, PhD; Dekker, Jack PhD

Continued Medical Education
Collapse Box


Learning Objectives: After participating in this educational activity, the reader should be better able to evaluate the empirical evidence for pre/post changes in psychoanalysis patients with complex mental disorders, and assess the limitations of the meta-analysis.

Background: The effectiveness of psychoanalysis is still a controversial issue, despite increasing research efforts.

Objective: To investigate the empirical evidence for psychoanalysis by means of a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of the research data.

Method: A systematic literature search was undertaken to find studies regarding the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, published between 1970 and 2011. A meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Fourteen studies (total n = 603) were included in the meta-analysis. All but one were pre/post cohort studies. At treatment termination, the mean pre/post effect size across all outcome measures was 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.50; p < .01). The mean pre/post effect size for symptom improvement was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.20–1.84; p < .01), and for improvement in personality characteristics 1.08 (95% CI, 0.89–1.26; p < .01). At follow-up the mean pre/follow-up effect size was 1.46 across all outcome measures (95% CI, 1.08–1.83; p < .01), 1.65 for symptom change (95% CI, 1.24–2.06; p < .01), and 1.31 for personality change (95% CI, 1.00–1.62; p < .01).

Conclusions: A limited number of mainly pre/post studies, presenting mostly completers analyses, provide empirical evidence for pre/post changes in psychoanalysis patients with complex mental disorders, but the lack of comparisons with control treatments is a serious limitation in interpreting the results. Further controlled studies are urgently needed.

© 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College

You currently do not have access to this article.

You may need to:

Note: If your society membership provides for full-access to this article, you may need to login on your society’s web site first.