Radstaak, Hüning, and Bohlmeijer (2020) reported on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of well‐being therapy (WBT) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the treatment of residual posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. No significant differences emerged between treatment conditions. However, our view is that what the authors labeled as WBT did not match the manualized psychotherapeutic strategy, and what was defined as TAU was actually an active control group. Further methodological limitations hinder the interpretation of results and make it difficult to draw conclusions from the study. Radstaak et al. (2020) deserve credit for addressing the vexing and neglected problem of residual symptoms in PTSD. However, the role of WBT in PTSD treatment still needs to be explored via an effectively designed RCT. Given that WBT does not require exposure to a patient's index traumatic event as a means of alleviating PTSD symptoms, WBT may represent a promising alternative to current treatments of PTSD.

中文翻译：

---

当标签与试验内容不符时：创伤后应激障碍中的“幸福疗法”：对 Radstaak 等人的评论。(2020)

Radstaak、Hüning 和 Bohlmeijer (2020) 报告了一项随机对照试验 (RCT)，将幸福疗法 (WBT) 与常规治疗 (TAU) 相比，治疗残余创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD) 症状。治疗条件之间没有出现显着差异。然而，我们的观点是，作者标记为 WBT 的与手动心理治疗策略不匹配，而定义为 TAU 的实际上是一个主动对照组。进一步的方法学限制阻碍了结果的解释，并使从研究中得出结论变得困难。拉德斯塔克等人。(2020) 解决了 PTSD 中令人烦恼和被忽视的残留症状问题，值得称赞。然而，WBT 在 PTSD 治疗中的作用仍然需要通过有效设计的 RCT 来探索。