Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in treating repetitive negative thinking, rumination, and worry – a transdiagnostic meta-analysis – CORRIGENDUM

In response to Bailey (2025), we revisited the subgroup classification of the treatment specificity variable, that is, whether a treatment was considered specialized for repetitive negative thinking (RNT) or general.We considered the critique of a potential misclassification of treatments and repeated our classification procedure arriving at a plausibly more consistent solution.Specifically, we reassigned meta-cognitive therapy treatments, Applied Relaxation treatments, and one Emotion Regulation Therapy treatment to the specialized (RNT-specific) group.For a more detailed discussion, please refer to our response letter (Stenzel et al., 2026) to the letter by Bailey (2025).Most importantly, no conclusions were affected by this.However, after reclassifying the treatments and the reanalysis, the following statistical values (in bold) have changed and should be substituted.Also, the Table 1 and the Figure 2 have changed and should be updated.p. 1: Abstract RNT-specific interventions (g = À0.87) were significantly more efficacious in reducing RNT than less specific approaches (g = À0.48).p. 6: Meta-regressions and subgroup analyses Subgroup analysis suggested a significant differential effect of treatment specificity Q(1) = 8.05, p = 0.005, such that general approaches yield smaller effect sizes (g = À0.48)than RNT-specific interventions (g = À0.87).p. 9: Efficacy of RNT-specific interventions RNT-specific interventions seemed to outperform general approaches significantly (Δg = 0.39).