Exposure‐based writing interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have shown promise when compared with waitlist conditions, placebo writing control conditions, and evidence‐based, trauma‐focused treatments. Recently, Dawson et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine existing published randomized controlled trials investigating exposure‐based writing interventions. The findings were encouraging; however, the studies included in the meta‐analysis had a high degree of methodological heterogeneity. Our own work examining exposure‐based writing as an intervention for PTSD has demonstrated that methodological differences in the structure of exposure‐based writing can have a meaningful impact on treatment outcome. Accordingly, we urge caution in interpreting the meta‐analysis findings reported by Dawson and colleagues and encourage investigation into better understanding the mechanisms underlying exposure‐based writing interventions to further propel this important area of work.

中文翻译：

---

寻求了解基于暴露的写作疗法对创伤后应激障碍有效的条件：对 Dawson 等人的评论。(2020)

与等待名单条件、安慰剂写作控制条件和以证据为基础的、以创伤为中心的治疗相比，针对创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD) 的基于暴露的写作干预已显示出前景。最近，道森等人。(2020) 进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析，以检查现有已发表的随机对照试验，调查基于暴露的写作干预。结果令人鼓舞；然而，纳入荟萃分析的研究具有高度的方法异质性。我们自己研究基于暴露的写作作为 PTSD 干预的工作表明，基于暴露的写作结构的方法学差异可以对治疗结果产生有意义的影响。因此，