Universal Informatics · Research reading room

Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner.

Smedslund G; Dalsbø TK; Steiro AK; Winsvold A; Clench-Aas J · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007 · Systematic review and meta-analysis

Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication

Recorded summary

The available randomized evidence did not establish that CBT reduced continuing violence.

Recorded limitations

Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.

Evidence and provenance

Chapter Trust Factor uses a minimum of three distinct qualifying studies. Publication records retain their own evidence and assessment.

Study design and assessment
design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
assessment
category
review
is Randomized Controlled Trial
false
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

review Scope
abstract
trust Factor
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
1
randomized Controlled Trial
false
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-applicable
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

review Scope
abstract
human Approval
false
display Crosses
1
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
rating Scale
library-trust-factor/1-3
jadad
status
not-applicable
score
Not recorded
evidence
evidence Type
Systematic review and meta-analysis
intervention
CBT or programmes containing CBT elements Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
No intervention; alternative psychodynamic treatment; or twelve-step facilitation
sample
Six trials; 2343 people
measurement
Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention; New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
timing
Study-specific
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    No clear effect
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.86
    uncertainty
    95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; four trials,1771 participants
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    No clear effect
    effect Estimate
    RR 1.07
    uncertainty
    95% CI 0.68 to 1.68
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
attrition
Not established from accessed abstract.
confounding
Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
adverse Findings
Not established from accessed abstract.
transfer Limits
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
jadad
not applicable
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
population
relation
direct
population
Men physically abusive toward female partners
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies men physically abusive toward female partners.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
Topics and recorded topic scores
  1. key
    language:domestic-family-violence
    title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    collection
    language
    trust Score
    2
Citation snapshot and identifiers
id
dv-reviews-17636823
doi
10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
pmid
17636823
citation Snapshot
count
Not recorded
source
Not recorded
retrieved At
Not recorded
status
not-assessed
citations By Collection
language
Not recorded
Complete approved library record
publication Approval
status
approved-for-publication
approved By
Ben Korbel
approved At
2026-11-01
assessment
AI assessed; human approved for publication
scope
Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.
source Revision
audit-r2-3fce233f4f2a
source Content Hash
3fce233f4f2a45c278b95934c0dfecdb6d84d079703e8fcdac931eddaa494f81
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
editorial Audit
auditor
Codex (AI)
completed At
2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
prior Content Hash
73b0df8e5f57afce9dd76f7cd9670136c4d0662c5e5221875b20fb8edff7316b
prior Revision
r1-73b0df8e5f57
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-17636823
doi
10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
pmid
17636823
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
0e53335490f8d1f0ce6ba922f8eabbbeeaaac1e6ca409732f8f76f445196dc0a
claim Check
Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

applied Proposals
None recorded
method
AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
limitations

Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

study Family Id
review:17636823
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-17636823
aliases
None recorded
title
Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner.
journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2007
authors
Smedslund G; Dalsbø TK; Steiro AK; Winsvold A; Clench-Aas J
design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
kind
Review
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
pmid
17636823
urls

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
The available randomized evidence did not establish that CBT reduced continuing violence.
limitation
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
citation Count
Not recorded
citation Snapshot
count
Not recorded
source
Not recorded
retrieved At
Not recorded
status
not-assessed
study Design Assessment
category
review
is Randomized Controlled Trial
false
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

review Scope
abstract
paper Trust Assessment
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
1
randomized Controlled Trial
false
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-applicable
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

review Scope
abstract
human Approval
false
display Crosses
1
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
rating Scale
library-trust-factor/1-3
citations By Collection
language
Not recorded
topics
  1. key
    language:domestic-family-violence
    title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    collection
    language
    trust Score
    2
journal Key
cochranedatabaseofsystematicreviews
journal Label
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-17636823
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner.
    authors
    Smedslund G; Dalsbø TK; Steiro AK; Winsvold A; Clench-Aas J
    year
    2007
    journal
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
    doi
    10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
    pmid
    17636823
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    collections

    language

    categories

    Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

    targets
    None recorded
    neurotransmitters
    None recorded
    conditions
    None recorded
    condition Evidence
    None recorded
    age Groups

    adults

    age Population
    record Id
    dv-reviews-17636823
    collections

    language

    groups

    adults

    reported Ages
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    youth Source Note
    Not recorded
    source URL
    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823
    basis Type
    source-limited-ai-editorial-assessment
    classification Note
    Original age terms: adults. Programme targets or possible eligibility are not counted as observed ages.
    community Matches
    1. category Id
      domestic-violence
      relation
      direct
    kind
    Review
    design
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    origin
    approved-dv-20261101
    priority
    1
    quotes
    None recorded
    finding
    The available randomized evidence did not establish that CBT reduced continuing violence.
    summary
    The available randomized evidence did not establish that CBT reduced continuing violence.
    limitation
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    intervention
    CBT or programmes containing CBT elements Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    No intervention; alternative psychodynamic treatment; or twelve-step facilitation
    sample
    Six trials; 2343 people
    measurement
    Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention; New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
    timing
    Study-specific
    trial Id
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.86
      uncertainty
      95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; four trials,1771 participants
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      RR 1.07
      uncertainty
      95% CI 0.68 to 1.68
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    attrition
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    confounding
    Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    transfer Limits
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    jadad
    not applicable
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Men physically abusive toward female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies men physically abusive toward female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    review Scope
    abstract
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    1
    randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-applicable
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    review Scope
    abstract
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    1
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    rating Scale
    library-trust-factor/1-3
    jadad
    status
    not-applicable
    score
    Not recorded
    citation Snapshot
    count
    Not recorded
    source
    Not recorded
    retrieved At
    Not recorded
    status
    not-assessed
    citation Count
    Not recorded
    publication Approval
    status
    approved-for-publication
    approved By
    Ben Korbel
    approved At
    2026-11-01
    assessment
    AI assessed; human approved for publication
    scope
    Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.
    source Revision
    audit-r2-3fce233f4f2a
    source Content Hash
    3fce233f4f2a45c278b95934c0dfecdb6d84d079703e8fcdac931eddaa494f81
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    review:17636823
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-17636823
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    73b0df8e5f57afce9dd76f7cd9670136c4d0662c5e5221875b20fb8edff7316b
    prior Revision
    r1-73b0df8e5f57
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-17636823
    doi
    10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
    pmid
    17636823
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    0e53335490f8d1f0ce6ba922f8eabbbeeaaac1e6ca409732f8f76f445196dc0a
    claim Check
    Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    applied Proposals
    None recorded
    method
    AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
    limitations

    Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

    assessment Record
    id
    dv-reviews-17636823
    title
    Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner.
    authors

    Smedslund G · Dalsbø TK · Steiro AK · Winsvold A · Clench-Aas J

    year
    2007
    journal
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
    doi
    10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
    pmid
    17636823
    trial Registration
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    CBT or programmes containing CBT elements
    publication Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    study Family Id
    review:17636823
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    false
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Men physically abusive toward female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies men physically abusive toward female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    age
    groups

    adults

    reported Range
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    country
    United States(all six trials)
    setting
    Multiple study settings; distribution not established from abstract.
    sample Size
    randomized
    Not recorded
    analyzed
    Not recorded
    description
    Six trials; 2343 people
    intervention
    description
    CBT or programmes containing CBT elements
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    No intervention; alternative psychodynamic treatment; or twelve-step facilitation
    outcomes
    1. name
      Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.86
      uncertainty
      95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; four trials,1771 participants
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      RR 1.07
      uncertainty
      95% CI 0.68 to 1.68
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    finding
    The available randomized evidence did not establish that CBT reduced continuing violence.
    limitation
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    design
    type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    randomization Evidence
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    masking
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    crosses
    0
    cross Rationale
    Evidence synthesis receives no trial-design crosses.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    attrition
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    confounding
    Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    transfer Limits
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    jadad
    not applicable
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823
      type
      Europe PMC indexed publication metadata and abstract
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      PMID, DOI, title, journal and authors reconciled within the indexed source; full-text appraisal not claimed.
    2. url
      https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:08.817110+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      DOI and normalized title match the Europe PMC record. Bibliographic verification only; not a full-text review.
    publication Status
    status
    Published journal article
    correction Retraction Check
    Europe PMC publication types and Crossref relation/update metadata checked. No retraction indicator found in these records.
    uncertainty
    Metadata checks do not guarantee absence of all notices or later changes.
    version Links
    1. DOI
      10.1002/14651858.cd006048
      type
      new_version
      label
      New version
      source
      publisher
      updated
      date-parts

      1. 2007 · 7 · 18

      date-time
      2007-07-18T00:00:00Z
      timestamp
      1184716800000
    recommendation Rationale
    Provides a historical randomized-evidence synthesis for CBT with abusive men; overlap with later reviews and bibliographic year uncertainty remain explicit.
    review
    status
    pending
    reviewer
    Not recorded
    assessment Status
    assessed
    assessment Notes
    Abstract-level structured assessment; missing fields are explicit. Review evidence is not counted as additional independent trials.
    identity Verification
    status
    cross-source-verified
    fields

    DOI · title

    limitation
    Not recorded
    source Evidence Hashes
    crossref SHA256
    45eb9b2e51b9147cdbce94c089644e95c86d483744f9d47e0bdd5ad046cd2b79
    review Readiness
    ai-editorial-audit-complete-release-pending
    review Ready
    true
    research Lane
    reviews-prevention
    publication Recommendation
    status
    recommended-summary
    reason
    Suitable as a qualified research-library summary at the stated source-access level. This is not a conclusion that the intervention is effective or safe.
    scope
    Research summary only; no treatment recommendation
    human Release Approval
    false
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    73b0df8e5f57afce9dd76f7cd9670136c4d0662c5e5221875b20fb8edff7316b
    prior Revision
    r1-73b0df8e5f57
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-17636823
    doi
    10.1002/14651858.cd006048.pub2
    pmid
    17636823
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    0e53335490f8d1f0ce6ba922f8eabbbeeaaac1e6ca409732f8f76f445196dc0a
    claim Check
    Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    applied Proposals
    None recorded
    method
    AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
    limitations

    Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    review Scope
    abstract
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    1
    randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-applicable
    basis
    Evidence synthesis receives no trial-design crosses.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.cd006048.pub2

    review Scope
    abstract
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    0
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    jadad
    status
    not-applicable
    score
    Not recorded
    evidence
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Men physically abusive toward female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies men physically abusive toward female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
    intervention
    description
    CBT or programmes containing CBT elements
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    No intervention; alternative psychodynamic treatment; or twelve-step facilitation
    outcomes
    1. name
      Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.86
      uncertainty
      95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; four trials,1771 participants
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      RR 1.07
      uncertainty
      95% CI 0.68 to 1.68
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    citation Snapshot
    count
    Not recorded
    source
    Not recorded
    retrieved At
    Not recorded
    status
    not-assessed
    provenance
    Discovered by AI
    content Hash
    3fce233f4f2a45c278b95934c0dfecdb6d84d079703e8fcdac931eddaa494f81
    revision
    audit-r2-3fce233f4f2a
    archive Entries
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    chapter Number
    5
    topic Id
    domestic-family-violence
    topic Title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    trust Score
    2
evidence
evidence Type
Systematic review and meta-analysis
intervention
CBT or programmes containing CBT elements Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
No intervention; alternative psychodynamic treatment; or twelve-step facilitation
sample
Six trials; 2343 people
measurement
Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention; New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
timing
Study-specific
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/17636823 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636823/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Continued violence: CBT versus no intervention
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    No clear effect
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.86
    uncertainty
    95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; four trials,1771 participants
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    New violence: CBT versus psychodynamic group
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    No clear effect
    effect Estimate
    RR 1.07
    uncertainty
    95% CI 0.68 to 1.68
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
attrition
Not established from accessed abstract.
confounding
Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
adverse Findings
Not established from accessed abstract.
transfer Limits
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
jadad
not applicable
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
population
relation
direct
population
Men physically abusive toward female partners
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies men physically abusive toward female partners.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Few trials and wide intervals. This historical review overlaps subsequent perpetrator reviews; publication year/issue metadata are inconsistent across index versions.
jadad
status
not-applicable
score
Not recorded
condition Evidence
None recorded
conditions
None recorded
topic Trust Scores

2

full Text
status
not-indexed
retrieval Available
false

Open this publication in the interactive library