Meta‐analysis can be valuable if it heeds its originators' caution that intimate communing with the data is essential. A critique of the authors' own meta‐analysis shows that the danger of overly broad conclusions could be reduced by attention to specificities and awareness of potentially hidden sources of variance. Conclusions from even good meta‐analyses are best placed in perspective, along with naturalistic reviews, open studies, and even anecdotes to yield a fair picture of what computer‐aided psychotherapy or any other treatment can achieve under varying conditions. The most realistic picture comes from zooming in and out and melding meta‐analyses with further types of evidence.
|Journal||Cognitive Behaviour Therapy|
|Publication status||Published - 2009|