Lancee · Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 2008 · systematic review of randomized controlled trials · n=9 RCTs (12 articles)

A systematic review of cognitive-behavioral treatment for nightmares: toward a well-established treatment.

Cited 77 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 18853707 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

The authors conducted a systematic review searching PsychInfo and PubMed (through May 1, 2008) to evaluate nonpharmacological cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for nightmare frequency and compare different CBT approaches. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating nightmare treatments. The review identified 12 peer-reviewed articles covering 9 RCTs (including 2 follow-up studies and 1 preliminary report) that evaluated recording nightmares, relaxation, exposure, and cognitive restructuring.

What was found

All evaluated studies used nightmare frequency as the primary dependent variable and found significant within-group reductions from pre- to post-treatment for intervention or placebo conditions (Cohen's d range = 0.7 to 2.9). Five studies showed significant intervention superiority over a waiting-list control group. Only one study detected a significant difference between two active interventions. Nightmare-focused CBT (exposure and imagery rehearsal therapy [IRT]) showed better outcomes than indirect CBT methods (recording, relaxation). There was no meaningful difference between IRT and exposure, but only one RCT directly compared them. Exposure was evaluated by three distinct research groups, whereas IRT was evaluated by only one research group.

Why it matters

Direct, nightmare-focused psychological interventions appear more efficacious than indirect behavioral approaches like relaxation or tracking alone for reducing nightmare frequency.

Limits

None of the included articles fulfilled CONSORT quality guidelines. The evidence base was small (9 RCTs), only five studies demonstrated superiority over waitlist controls, direct active-comparator trials were almost absent, and IRT findings originated from a single research group. Total participant numbers and adverse effects were not reported in the abstract.

Cited by