FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2118945679> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2118945679 endingPage "480" @default.
• W2118945679 startingPage "475" @default.
• W2118945679 abstract "Free AccessSystematic ReviewA Systematic Review of Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Nightmares: Toward a Well-Established Treatment Jaap Lancee, M.Sc., Victor I. Spoormaker, Ph.D.*, Barry Krakow, M.D., Jan van den Bout, Ph.D. Jaap Lancee, M.Sc. Address correspondence to: Jaap Lancee, MSc, Utrecht University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Clinical and Health Psychology, PO Box 80.140, 3508TC Utrecht, The Netherlands+31 30 253 2387 E-mail Address: [email protected] Utrecht University, Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht, The Netherlands Search for more papers by this author , Victor I. Spoormaker, Ph.D.* Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, United Kingdom *Present Affiliation: Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany Search for more papers by this author , Barry Krakow, M.D. Sleep & Human Health Institute, Albuquerque, NM Sleep Arts & Sciences, Ltd, Albuquerque, NM Search for more papers by this author , Jan van den Bout, Ph.D. Utrecht University, Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht, The Netherlands Search for more papers by this author Published Online:October 15, 2008https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.27285Cited by:43SectionsAbstractPDF ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations AboutABSTRACTThe aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) on nightmare frequency and to determine which kind of CBT is the most effective treatment. A systematic literature search was carried out in PsychInfo and PubMed articles published on or before May 1, 2008. The inclusion criteria were: nightmare treatment study, use of nonpharmacological treatment, not a qualitative case study, randomized-controlled trial (RCT). After selection, 12 peer-reviewed studies about 9 RCTs remained (2 follow-up studies and one displaying preliminary results). Several interventions have been reviewed including, recording one's nightmares, relaxation, exposure, and techniques of cognitive restructuring. The 12 evaluated articles varied in quality, and none fulfilled CONSORT guidelines. All articles used nightmare frequency as the primary dependent variable, and all found significant in-group differences (pre vs post) for intervention or placebo (range d = 0.7–2.9). Five studies were able to find a significant group effect for the intervention compared to a waiting list control group. Only one study found significant differences between 2 intervention groups. Nightmare-focused CBT (exposure and imagery rehearsal therapy [IRT]) revealed better treatment outcomes than indirect CBT (relaxation, recording). IRT and exposure showed no meaningful differences, but only one RCT directly compared both techniques. Three different research groups demonstrated the effects of exposure, but only one group showed the effect of IRT. Thus, RCTs that compare IRT with exposure by independent research groups are much needed.Citation:Lancee J; Spoormaker VI; Krakow B; van den Bout J. A systematic review of cognitive-behavioral treatment for nightmares: toward a well-established treatment. J Clin Sleep Med 2008;4(5):475–480.INTRODUCTIONNightmares are typically defined as extremely frightening dreams leading to awakening (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. [DSM-IV-TR]),1 although definitions vary. For instance, the definition in the International Classification of Sleep Disorder, 2nd ed. (ICSD-2)2 does not limit negative emotions in nightmares to fear alone, as anger or sadness are also prevalent in nightmares.3 In the research literature, nightmares that do not lead to awakening are usually referred to as bad dreams,4 and nightmare induced distress5 is differentiated from nightmare frequency (NF): two related but independent constructs.Studies of the general population have indicated that nightmares are highly prevalent, with up to 70% having occasional nightmares6 and approximately 2% to 5% of the adult population suffering from frequent nightmares.6–9 A similar percentage is estimated to “have a current problem with nightmares,” as frequent and chronic nightmares are associated with disrupted sleep,7 daily distress,4,8 and a variety of sleep complaints (e.g., night terrors,9 chronic insomnia,10 and sleep disordered breathing11,12) and affective complaints.13,14 Nightmares can have an idiopathic (unspecific) origin or occur as part of a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).15 Approximately 50% to 70% of PTSD patients reports frequent nightmares.16This high prevalence and impact of nightmares has resulted in several treatment outcome studies. In general, older studies on pharmacological treatment of nightmares (e.g., antidepressants) have shown poor results,17 while a recent systematic review on pharmacological treatment of posttraumatic nightmares showed that effects are inconclusive/tentative at best.18 The only clear exception is the α1-antagonist prazosin, which has shown very promising outcomes for posttraumatic nightmare reduction in 3 relatively small randomized controlled trials (RCTs),19,20,21 although it appears that prazosin must be used continuously as nightmares return after drug withdrawal. To date, cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) has gained more empirical support22 and is the treatment-of-choice for nightmares,14 particularly in long-term scenarios.A range of cognitive-behavioral techniques seem to effectively decrease NF. Indirect CBT such as recording23 one's nightmares and relaxation exercises24 reduce NF. Nightmare-focused CBT such as exposure or systematic desensitisation24 and techniques of cognitive restructuring25 seem to decrease NF even more. These techniques mostly include recording and relaxation with an extra component. In exposure-related techniques, nightmares are written down and relived in imagination during the day. In cognitive restructuring techniques, nightmares are written down and thereafter changed in a (typically) more positive version. These changed nightmares can be relived during the day (imagery rehearsal therapy [IRT])26 or can be changed within the nightmare directly (lucid dreaming Treatment [LDT]).27 In a review, Wittmann et al.22 concluded that IRT has been evaluated most extensively but has been tested only by one research group.To date different nightmare treatment studies have not been reviewed systematically. The aim of this review is to evaluate whether CBT shows effects on diminishing nightmare frequency as promising as those seen in RCTs, and if so, which kind of CBT is most effective.METHODSearch StrategyA systematic literature search was carried out in PsychInfo and PubMed for articles published on or before May 1, 2008. The terms “nightmares” AND “treatment” were used. References from each relevant paper, including 3 recent reviews of the literature13.14.22 were examined for additional relevant studies.The search strategy sought to obtain all relevant published databased RCTs based on the following criteria: nightmare treatment study, use of nonpharmacological treatment, not a qualitative case study, RCT. Follow-up studies were also included because they supplied information about the long-term effects of treatment. All RCTs on nightmare treatments for adults were reviewed by the first 2 authors.Data AnalysisTo adequately compare studies, Cohen's d was calculated for all studies with the software package G*power 3.0.5.28 Because all studies were paired-sample studies, the between-group correlations have to be taken into account when deriving Cohen's d. However, most studies did not supply the correlations between groups or sufficient data to calculate Cohen's d for a paired-sample study. To adequately compare the Cohen's d between studies, a conservative correlation between pre- and post-test measurement of r = 0.5 was used for all studies. No effect sizes could be calculated for one study29 because means and standard deviations were not reported, another study30 only supplied NF information (Both authors were contacted, but could not supply the missing data).G*power 3.0528 was used to further explore the nonsignificant differences within- and between-groups. When there was no within-group (pre-post) (p > 0.05) effect over time, we calculated the sample size necessary to detect a significant effect (using the difference in effect size, assumption of dependent groups and a power of 0.8). If there was no significant effect in a study between 2 groups (e.g., intervention, waiting list), the sample size necessary to achieve adequate power (0.8) was determined (independent groups assumed).RESULTSStudiesThe search string yielded 454 article titles in PsychInfo and 2645 in PubMed. After reviewing the abstracts, most articles were excluded because they were no-treatment articles. Of the remaining 108 articles, 70 were rejected because they were pharmacotherapy (30) or single case articles (40). The remaining articles were then reviewed; 17 of these were excluded because they were not controlled studies, one31 was excluded because it was in-group controlled, and one32 was excluded because the population was not >18 years of age. Twelve articles remained—9 studies,23–27,29,30,33,34 2 follow-up articles,35,36 and one article displaying preliminary results37 (see Table 1).Table 1 Search StringPubMedPsychInfoTreatment AND nightmares2645454Treatment studies5058Nonpharmacotherapy studies3345No single-case studies1721Controlled trials1214Controlled-controlled trials1113Population >18 years1012Studies9Follow-up articles2Article displaying preliminary results1Study CharacteristicsOf the articles we examined, 10 were written in the US, one in the UK,24 and one in the Netherlands27 (Table 2). The articles were published between 1978 and 2007. In the studies, a total of 437 participants were analyzed, the average number per study being 48.6 (SD = 35.8, range 20–114). In the 2 follow-up articles, intervention was offered to the waiting list (or recording condition) after 3 months.35,36 One preliminary37 and original26 study investigated sexual assault victims with PTSD and another study used students.30 The remaining studies recruited participants through advertisements in the general media.Table 2A General Information Included StudiesReferencesN* (m/f)Treatment (start /completed**)TypeDiaryCellucci and Lawrence2729Exposure (10/10) / Placebo (10/10) / Recording (9/8)Ind8 weeksMiller and DiPilato2632Exposure (12/10) / Relaxation (12/11) / Waiting list (12/11)Ind15 weeksKellner et al.3226 (7/19)IRT (14/13) / Desensitization (14/13)Group / Ind1–2 monthNeidhardt et al.2020 (4/15)IRT (10/10) / Recording (10/10)Group1 monthKrakow et al.3719 (4/15)IRT (10/9) / Recording (10/10)Group1 monthKrakow et al.2258 (13/45)IRT (39/39) / Waiting list (19/19)GroupnoneKrakow et al.3941IRT (53/41)GroupnoneBurgess et al.21103Exposure (83/28) / Relaxation (61/33) / waiting list (62/42)Self-help12 weeksKrakow et al.3091 (0/91)IRT (87/43) / Waiting list (82/48)Group3 weeksKrakow et al.23114 (0/114)IRT (88/54)/ Waiting list (80/60)Group3 weeksSpoormaker and van den Bout2423 (6/17)LDT Ind (8/8) / LDT group (8/8) / Waiting list (7/7)Group / IndnoneDavis and Wright3332ERRT (21/17) / Waiting list (22/15)Group / Ind3 weeksERRT = exposure, relaxation and rescripting therapy; IRT = imagery rehearsal therapy; LDT = lucid dreaming therapy*N = participants who completed treatment/first follow-up**Completed = treatment and first follow-up (with exception of follow-up studies)Table 2B General Information Included Studies, ContinuedReferencesMeasurementsDurationFollow-upCellucci and Lawrence27NF / NI / NW / Anxiety5 weeks, 45–60 min a week1 / 2 weeksMiller and DiPilato26NF / MMPI / POMS / DSS6 weeks, 45–75 min a weekAfter diary / 10 weeksKellner et al.32NF / NI / SQ / SCL-90One session4 / 7 / 10 monthsNeidhardt et al.20NF / SQ / SCL-90One session3 monthsKrakow et al.37NF / SQ / SCL-90One session30 monthsKrakow et al.22NF / NW / SQ / VASOne session3 monthsKrakow et al.39NF / NW / SQ / VASOne session18 monthsBurgess et al.21NF / BDI / Fear4 weeks / hour a day1 month / 6 monthsKrakow et al.30NF / NW / ND/ PSS / PSQI3 sessions (2 × 1 hour, 1 × 2 hour)3 month follow upKrakow et al.23NF / NW / PSS / PSQI3 sessions (2 × 1 hour, 1 × 2 hour)3 months / 6 monthsSpoormaker and van den Bout24NF / SRIP / SLEEP-501 × 2 hour session12 weeksDavis and Wright33NF / NI / NW / BDI / PTSD / PSQI3 weeks, 2 h a week1week / 3 months / 6 monthsBDI = Beck Depression Inventory40; DSS = Dream Survey Schedule; Fear = Fear Questionnaire41; NF = nightmare frequency; NI = nightmare intensity; NW = Nights with nightmares per week; POMS = Profile of Mood States42; PSS = PTSD Symptom Scale43; PSQI = Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index44; SCL-90 = Self-Report Symptom Inventory35; SLEEP-50 = sleep complaints45; SRIP = Self-Rating Inventory for PTSD46; SQ = symptom questionnaire36; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale (sleep).The published trials we examined varied in quality, yet none fulfilled CONSORT guidelines.38 None of the articles explained how sample size was determined to achieve enough power. Only 3 articles26,29,34 explained how randomization was achieved, and one covered the issue of blinding the procedure.26All articles described eligibility criteria of participants. For inclusion, most studies used a minimum NF of once a week. Miller and DiPilato29 used a minimum frequency of once a month. Cellucci and Lawrence,30 and Kellner et al.33 did not mention a minimum frequency. Other inclusion criteria were: 18 years or older,23,24,26,29,34,35,37 sexual assault survivors,26,37 posttraumatic stress symptoms,26,37 and having experienced a traumatic event.34 Exclusion criteria included alcohol/drug abuse,23,24,26,29,33–35,37 medication,23,25,27,29,35,36 psychosis/schizophrenia,25,26,33,34,36,37 severe (psychiatric) illness,24,29 and other sleep disorders.24,27Three studies did not suffer from any dropout.23,26,27 Other studies mentioned the following reasons for dropout: failing to contact the participant, not sending back follow-up measurement, illness, got better. Krakow et al.26,37 and Davis and Wright34 found no statistical differences between completers and dropouts. Dropouts in the study of Burgess et al.24 were more often single and had fewer nightmares in the relaxation group at baseline. Moreover, this study suffered the highest dropout (42% for treatment condition); this attrition rate is, however, not abnormal for self help treatment.39Four articles described an exposure type method,24,29,30,33 7 articles IRT,23,25,26,33,35–37 one study used “exposure, relaxation and rescripting therapy” (ERRT), an IRT-like technique,34 and one study used LDT.27 Most studies used a waiting-list control group, and one30 was placebo controlled. Four studies used a second intervention next to the control group. These second interventions consisted of relaxation,29 recording,23,30,35 and LDT group intervention.27 One study compared only 2 interventions without using a control group.33 Treatment duration from a therapist ranged from 450 minutes29 to zero minutes (self-help).24 Most studies used one to 3 treatment sessions.All studies used a measurement for nightmare frequency; some studies used a diary to assess NF,24,30,37 others used interviews,29 the remaining studies used questionnaires.23,25–27,33,35,36 Some studies also measured nightmare intensity (NI),30,33,34 nightmare distress (ND)26,37 or amount of nights with nightmares per week.25,26,30,34,36 Most studies used questionnaires to assess other sleep complaints or mental health complaints.To test for changes in time within- and between-groups, repeated-measures analysis of variance and subsequent paired t-tests, was used by most articles. Some used only paired t-tests,23,27 or did not describe their statistical analysis.29,30 One did not provide mean scores for variables,29 and one only reported mean scores for NF.30 Only 3 articles provided the intention-to-treat analysis.24,26,34Intervention EfficacyKey results for all the studies are displayed using standardized effect sizes (Cohen's d) in Table 3; for a quick overview, see Table 4. All articles used NF as a primary variable, and all found significant in-group differences (pre vs post) for intervention or placebo (range d = 0.7 to 2.9), and none for waiting list. Most studies found differences on secondary variables (range d = 0.4 to 1.6), one did not,27 and 3 found these differences for only one of their interventions.23,24,35 The insignificant findings might have been a result of a power issue as Spoormaker and van den Bout27 would have needed an intervention group of n = 22 to pick up the difference in effect found for PTSD. The same applies to Neidhardt et al,23 in which a sample size of 58 (SCL-90)40 or 61 (SQ)41 would have been needed per group to achieve adequate power to find this effect size. For the follow-up study,35 17 participants were needed to significantly find the difference of d = 0.7. Burgess et al.24 had enough power to determine effect sizes as small as d = 0.4.Table 3 Effect Sizes (Cohen's d) Included StudiesNFNightmareintensity(distress)NightsweekSCL-90(BDI)SQ(fear)PTSDSLEEP(PSQI)Cellucci and Lawrence27Exposure / Placebo / Recording2.9/0.9/0*n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.Miller and DiPilato26Exposure / Relaxation / WLn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.Kellner et al.32IRT / Exposure1.9/1.20.5/1.5n.a.1.3/0.81.6/0.8n.a.n.a.Neidhardt et al.20IRT / Recording1.3/0.7n.a.n.a.1.1/0.3*1.4/0.3*n.a.n.a.Krakow et al.37IRT / Recording0.9/0.7n.a.n.a.1.1/0.3*1.2/0.7*n.a.n.a.Krakow et al.22IRT / WL0.7/0.3*n.a.1.3/0.1*n.a.0.4/0.15*n.a.0.8/+ 0.1*Krakow et al.39IRT / WL1.6/n.a.n.a.1.9/n.a.n.a.0.5/n.a.n.a.0.7/n.a.Burgess et al.21Exposure / relaxation / WL1.1/0.3/0.1*0.2*/0.2*/0*(0.8/0.1*/0.1*)(0.6/0.1*/0*)n.a.n.a.Krakow et al.30IRT / Waiting list0.9/+ 0.3*(0.6/0*)1.2/0.1*n.a.n.a.1.2/0.4*0.7/0.3*Krakow et al.23IRT / Waiting list0.8/+ 0.1*(1.1/0.1*)1.4/0.2*n.a.n.a.1.1/0.3*0.7/0.1*Spoormaker and van den Bout24LDT ind / LDT group / WL1.4/0.3/0*n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.0.6*/0.1*/+0.1*0.1*/0.2*/0.3*Davis and Wright33ERRT / Waiting list0.8/0.3*1.7/0.3*1.0/0.2*(0.6/+0.12*)n.a.0.8/+ 0.1*1.2/0.4*ERRT = exposure, relaxation and rescripting therapy; IRT = imagery rehearsal therapy; LDT = lucid dreaming therapy; WL = waiting list * = no significant difference; n.a. = not availableFollow-up studies effect sizes displayed are compared to baselineTable 4 Quick Overview of Efficacy of (Groups of) TechniquesType of treatmentTechniqueEffect size(Cohen's d) forNF reductionEffect on othersleep or affectivecomplaintsAmount ofstudies (n)Totalparticipants(n)NoneWaiting-list0–0.3 **No4154Indirect CBTRecording0–0.7 *No318Relaxation0.3No144Nightmare-focused CBTExposure / Desensitization1.1–2.9Yes361Lucid Dreaming Treatment0.3–1.4No116Imagery Rehearsal Therapy0.8–1.9Yes8133*One study insignificant**All insignificantThree IRT,25,26,34 and 2 exposure24,30 studies were able to find a significant group effect for the intervention compared to waiting list or placebo intervention. Burgess et al.24 also found significant differences between 2 groups (exposure and relaxation). Other studies were not able to display significant group-effects.23,27,33,35 This may be a power issue, because the sample sizes of these studies were small. Sample sizes of n = 52,33 n = 72,23 and n = 2427 were needed to detect significant (p < 0.05) differences in effect size with adequate power (0.8). Krakow et al.37 does not mention a significant group-effect in the preliminary study, but the final report does report these group-effects.26DISCUSSIONAlthough the number of included studies is relatively small and the studied groups are quite heterogeneous, this first systematic review on nightmare treatment was able to demonstrate that nightmare-focused CBT showed superior effects to other forms of nightmare treatment for both nightmare reduction and amelioration of associated sleep and affective complaints. So while indirect CBT such as recording and relaxation are effective in reducing nightmares (but not associated complaints), nightmare-focused CBT demonstrated better results on all outcomes, most notably the techniques of exposure and IRT.The only RCT comparing exposure with IRT found no statistical differences,33 and this systematic review could not conclude that one was more effective than the other. The only possible difference so far may be a trend that IRT seemed to reduce related affective complaints to a larger degree. It would be interesting to compare IRT to exposure in a sample with adequate power.Although IRT has been studied in more RCTs than exposure (5 vs 3), all studies on IRT have been conducted by the same research group.22 According to APA criteria for empirically supported treatments42 this would mean that IRT is a probably efficacious treatment instead of a well-established treatment (criterion V for well-established treatments: effects must have been demonstrated by at least 2 different investigators or investigatory teams). Criterion I, “superior to pill or psychological placebo or to another treatment,” has not been fulfilled yet for IRT, as the only nightmare study so far with statistically significant differences between interventions was that of Burgess et al,24 which showed stronger effects for exposure than for relaxation. Moreover, the effects of exposure have been demonstrated by 3 different research groups, making it the only well-established treatment for nightmares so far.Including the ERRT as employed by Davis and Wright34 as an IRT-like technique, may help lift the status of IRT, but RCTs following CONSORT guidelines38 evaluating IRT by independent research groups are much needed. Comparisons should be made with other techniques (well-established ones such as exposure and/or psychological placebo like recording), and pharmacological treatment (e.g., prazosin) in larger samples with sufficient power; assessment should focus on nightmare (frequency and distress), sleep, and affective (anxiety, PTSD, and depressive) complaints.DISCLOSURE STATEMENTThis was not an industry supported study. Dr. Krakow owns and operates Maimonides Sleep Arts and Sciences, Ltd., a for-profit sleep medical center and has published the following intellectual properties: Books – Insomnia Cures, Turning Nightmares Into Dreams, and Sound Sleep, Sound Mind; Websites – www.sleaptreatment.com, www.nightmaretreatment.com, and www.sleepdynamictherapy.com. The other authors have indicated no financial conflicts of interest.REFERENCES1 American Psychiatric AssociationDiagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders20004th ed.Washington DCAmerican Psychiatric Press Google Scholar2 American Academy of Sleep MedicineInternational classification of sleep disorders: diagnostic and coding manual20052nd ed.Westchester, ILAmerican Academy of Sleep Medicine Google Scholar3 Zadra AL, Pilon M, Donderi DCVariety and intensity of emotions in nightmares and bad dreamsJ Nerv Ment Dis200619424954, 16614545 CrossrefGoogle Scholar4 Zadra AL, Donderi DONightmares and bad dreams: their prevalence and relationship to well-beingJ Abnorm Psychol200010927381, 10895565 CrossrefGoogle Scholar5 Belicki KNightmare frequency versus nightmare distress: relations to psychopathology and cognitive styleJ Abnorm Psychol19921015927, 1500619 CrossrefGoogle Scholar6 Hublin C, Kaprio J, Partinen M, Koskenvuo MNightmares: familial aggregation and association with psychiatric disorders in nationwide twin cohortAm J Med Genet19998832936, 10402498 CrossrefGoogle Scholar7 Kales A, Soldatos C, Caldwell AB, et al.Nightmares: clinical characteristics and personality patternsAm J Psychiatry19801371197201, 7416265 CrossrefGoogle Scholar8 Berquier A, Ashton RCharacteristic of the frequent nightmare suffererJ Abnorm Psychol199210124650, 1583215 CrossrefGoogle Scholar9 Ohayon MM, Guilleminault CNight terrors, sleepwalking and confusional arousals in the general population: their frequency and relationship to other sleep and mental disordersJ Clin Psychiatry19996026876, 10221293 CrossrefGoogle Scholar10 Ohayon MM, Morselli PL, Guilleminault CPrevalence of nightmares and their relationship to psychopathology and daytime functioning in insomnia subjectsSleep1997203408, 9381055 CrossrefGoogle Scholar11 Gross M, Lavie PDreams in sleep apnea patientsDreaming19944195204 CrossrefGoogle Scholar12 Krakow B, Melendrez DC, Pedersen B, et al.Complex insomnia: insomnia and sleep-disordered breathing in a consecutive series of crime victims with nightmares and PTSDBiol Psychiatry20014994853, 11377413 CrossrefGoogle Scholar13 Nielsen T, Levin RNightmares: A new neurocognitive modelSleep Med Rev200711295310, 17498981 CrossrefGoogle Scholar14 Spoormaker VI, Schredl M, van den Bout JNightmares: from anxiety symptom to sleep disorderSleep Med Rev200610539 CrossrefGoogle Scholar15 Ross RJ, Ball WA, Sullivan KA, Caroff SNSleep disturbance as the hallmark of posttraumatic stress disorderAm J Psychiatry1989697707, 2658624 Google Scholar16 Spoormaker VI, Montgomery PDisturbed sleep in post-traumatic stress disorder: Secondary symptom or core featureSleep Med Rev20081216984, 18424196 CrossrefGoogle Scholar17 Friedman MJDrug treatment for PTSD: answers and questionsAnn N Y Acad Sci19978235971, 9238217 CrossrefGoogle Scholar18 van Liempt S, Vermetten E, Geuze E, Westenberg HGMPharmacotherapy for disordered sleep in post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic reviewInt Clin Psychopharmacol200621193202, 16687990 CrossrefGoogle Scholar19 Raskind M, Peskind E, Kanter E, et al.Reduction of nightmares and other PTSD symptoms in combat veterans by prazosin: a placebo-controlled studyAm J Psychiatry200316037173, 12562588 CrossrefGoogle Scholar20 Raskind MA, Peskind ER, Hoff DJ, et al.A parallel group placebo controlled study of prazosin for trauma nightmares and sleep disturbance in combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorderBiol Psychiatry2007892834, 17069768 CrossrefGoogle Scholar21 Taylor FB, Martin P, Thompson C, et al.Prazosin effects on objective sleep measures and clinical symptoms in civilian trauma posttraumatic stress disorder: a placebo-controlled studyBiol Psychiatry20076192834, 17069768 Google Scholar22 Wittmann L, Schredl M, Kramer MDreaming in posttraumatic stress disorder: A critical review of phenomenology, psychophysiology and treatmentPsychother Psychosom2007762539, 17170561 CrossrefGoogle Scholar23 Neidhardt EJ, Krakow B, Kellner R, Pathak DThe beneficial effects of one treatment session and recording of nightmares on chronic nightmare sufferersSleep1992154703, 1360698 Google Scholar24 Burgess M, Gill , Marks IMPostal self exposure treatment of recurrent nightmares: a randomised controlled trialBr J Psychiatry199817225762, 9614476 CrossrefGoogle Scholar25 Krakow B, Kellner R, Pathak D, Lambert LImagery rehearsal treatment for chronic nightmaresBehav Res Ther19953383743, 7677723 CrossrefGoogle Scholar26 Krakow B, Hollifield M, Johnston L, et al.Imagery rehearsal therapy for chronic nightmares in sexual assault survivors with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized controlled trialJAMA200128653745, 11476655 CrossrefGoogle Scholar27 Spoormaker VI, van den Bout JLucid dreaming treatment for nightmares: a pilot-studyPsychother Psychosom20067538994, 17053341 CrossrefGoogle Scholar28 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner AG*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciencesBehav Res Methods20073917591, 17695343 CrossrefGoogle Scholar29 Miller WR, DiPilato MTreatment of nightmares via relaxation and desentisation: a controlled evaluationJ Consult Clin Psychol1983518707, 6140275 CrossrefGoogle Scholar30 Celluci AJ, Lawrence PSThe efficacy of systematic desentisation in reducing nightmaresJ Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry1979910914 CrossrefGoogle Scholar31 Grandi S, Fabbri S, Panattoni N, Gonnella E, Marks IMSelf-exposure treatment of recurrent nightmares: waiting-list-controlled trial and 4-year follow-upPsychother Psychosom20067538488, 17053340 CrossrefGoogle Scholar32 Krakow B, Sandoval D, Schrader R, et al.Treatment of chronic nightmares in adjudicated adolescent girls in a residential facilityJ Adolesc Health20012994100, 11472867 CrossrefGoogle Scholar33 Kellner R, Neidhardt J, Krakow B, Pathak DChanges in chronic nightmares after one session of desensitization or rehearsal instructionsAm J Psychiatry199114965963, 1349459 Google Scholar34 Davis JL, Wright DCRandomised clinical trial for treatment of chronic nightmares in trauma-exposed adultsJ Trauma Stress20072012333, 17427914 CrossrefGoogle Scholar35 Krakow B, Kellner R, Neidhardt EJ, Pathak D, Lambert LImagery rehearsal treatment of chronic nightmares: with a thirty month follow-upJ Behav Ther Exp Psychol19932432530 CrossrefGoogle Scholar36 Krakow B, Kellner R, Pathak D, Lambert LLong term reduction of nightmares with imagery rehearsal treatmentBehav Cogn Psychoth19962413548 CrossrefGoogle Scholar37 Krakow B, Hollifield M, Schrader RA controlled study of imagery rehearsal for chronic nightmares in sexual assault survivors with PTSD; a preliminary reportJ Trauma Stress200013589609, 11109233 CrossrefGoogle Scholar38 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DGThe CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsLancet200135711914, 11323066 CrossrefGoogle Scholar39 Eysenbach GThe law of attritionJ Med Internet Res20057e11, 15829473 CrossrefGoogle Scholar40 Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Covi L, Guy WSelf-Report Symptom Inventory (SCL-90)ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology1976WashingtonUS Department of Health Education, and Welfare31331 Google Scholar41 Kellner RA symptom questionnaireJ Clin Psychiatry19874826874, 3597327 Google Scholar42 Chambless DL, Baker MJ, Baucom DH, et al.Update on empirically validated therapies, IIClin Psychol199851316 Google Scholar43 Beck A, Ward C, Mendelson M, Mock J," @default.
• W2118945679 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2118945679 creator A5005408618 @default.
• W2118945679 creator A5066457271 @default.
• W2118945679 creator A5068913616 @default.
• W2118945679 creator A5086390828 @default.
• W2118945679 date "2008-10-15" @default.
• W2118945679 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W2118945679 title "A Systematic Review of Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Nightmares: Toward a Well-Established Treatment" @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1910703782 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1966248546 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1966299473 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1966445551 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1970678593 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1971711665 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1973230171 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1974383296 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1990088566 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W1997801013 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2007043459 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2009483914 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2011259850 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2024071094 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2025927654 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2027850494 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W203001877 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2031201873 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2037061841 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2044278450 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2047855044 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2059381440 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2063221126 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W206429613 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2065134015 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2067495470 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2087484885 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2092548199 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2109383676 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2127369497 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2136772270 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2142066909 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2142960568 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2151487996 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2170933900 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2321303557 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2405054594 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2419393687 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2439939329 @default.
• W2118945679 cites W2737966001 @default.
• W2118945679 doi "https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.27285" @default.
• W2118945679 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2576316" @default.
• W2118945679 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18853707" @default.
• W2118945679 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2118945679 type Work @default.
• W2118945679 sameAs 2118945679 @default.
• W2118945679 citedByCount "61" @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792012 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792013 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792014 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792015 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792016 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792017 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792018 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792019 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792020 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792021 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792022 @default.
• W2118945679 countsByYear W21189456792023 @default.
• W2118945679 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2118945679 hasAuthorship W2118945679A5005408618 @default.
• W2118945679 hasAuthorship W2118945679A5066457271 @default.
• W2118945679 hasAuthorship W2118945679A5068913616 @default.
• W2118945679 hasAuthorship W2118945679A5086390828 @default.
• W2118945679 hasBestOaLocation W21189456791 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConcept C2781265626 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConceptScore W2118945679C118552586 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConceptScore W2118945679C169900460 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConceptScore W2118945679C2781265626 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConceptScore W2118945679C70410870 @default.
• W2118945679 hasConceptScore W2118945679C71924100 @default.
• W2118945679 hasIssue "05" @default.
• W2118945679 hasLocation W21189456791 @default.
• W2118945679 hasLocation W21189456792 @default.
• W2118945679 hasOpenAccess W2118945679 @default.
• W2118945679 hasPrimaryLocation W21189456791 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2118945679 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.

• next