This paper is meant as a framework that presents the clinical and methodological considerations, theoretical factors and scientific background, regarding the systematic review presented in part 2. The systematic review examined the ability of the three GAD specialized treatments Intolerance of uncertainty, Metacognitive therapy and Interpersonal emotional processing therapy, to reduce GAD relation symptoms pathological worry and anxiety. The paper was constructed around different aspects and the foundation of the systematic review, and was therefore meant as an methodological and theoretical elaboration, evaluation and discussion, of the review, and not an independent entity in its own right.
This paper provided an elaboration of the systematic reviews theoretical and clinical background, as well as an evaluation of the systematic reviews methodology. The theoretical underpinnings of the systematic review was presented in the theory segment. This included the cognitive understanding of anxiety and GAD, as well as GADs diagnostic history and features. Afterwards, the method segments evaluated the principles behind constructing research designs that is congruent with scientific imperatives. The systematic reviews design was evaluated and discussed according to the before mentioned principles of prober research designs. The quality of the research design, both for the included studies and the review in general, manifested in high internal, external and construct validity, along with reductions of the change of bias and confounders. It was concluded that the methodological quality of the systematic review were high, and thereby adding credibility to its results. The design could however be improved with more representative populations segments, with more even sex-distribution and age-distribution, and clinical trials with implementation of all three measurements, would improve the research design.
It was considered how future studies should be designed, in order to further improve the methodological quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was decided to be the best choice, since it is the research design that is deemed highest in regard to evidential power. The meta-analysis should be designed so that each effect size would be calculated instead of extracted, to reduce possible confounders by ensuring that the effect sizes were calculated in the exact same way.