The average response rate across trials (n=10) for CBT, non-active comparison conditions, and active comparison conditions were 68%, 13%, and 36% respectively. A random effects meta-analysis identified a large effect for CBT relative to comparison conditions (RR=2.72, 95% CI: 1.83, 4.04, z=4.94, p<0.001) with significant heterogeneity [Q(9)=17.56, p=0.04, I2=44.79%] (Figure 3). The NNT for CBT treatment response was three. Visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger’s test for bias indicated that publication bias was present (t=3.99, p=0.004). When Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill method was applied, four studies were trimmed and CBT still exhibited a large significant effect (RR=2.13, 95%CI: 1.39, 3.27). The analog-to-ANOVA revealed a significant difference between active comparison trials (RR=1.71) and non-active comparison trials (RR=3.93) [Q(1)=9.74, p<0.002]. Given the significant difference between comparison conditions, the summary effect was recalculated with active comparison trials removed. Results identified a large effect (RR=3.93, 95% CI: 2.52, 6.14, z=6.02, p<0.001) with minimal heterogeneity [Q(6)=6.50, p=0.37, I2=7.51%] among non-active comparison trials. For active comparison trials, a moderate effect was observed (RR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.29, 2.25, z=3.77, p<0.001), with minimal heterogeneity [Q(2)=1.14 p=0.57,
