Generalized Anxiety Disorder

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

CBT did not produce significantly greater improvement than enhanced usual care on clinician-rated GAD severity (GADSS), despite a numerically larger mean change in CBT (2.8 points) than EUC (1.4 point

Effect: null; mean change 2.8 (CBT) vs 1.4 (EUC)

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83

Patients receiving ERT demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in GAD severity compared to modified attention control, with large effect size on the time x group interaction,

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .83