I am disappointed to see this study highlighted here with this sensationalistic headline. A cursory reading of this article reveals a number of problems, and MIA staff should be aware that the American Journal of Psychiatry is known to be a biased source of information about both the biomedical model and psychodynamic therapy. The APA’s guild interests cover both domains. Potential problems I’ve noticed in this post and/or the article include: (1) relatively few or no studies of psychodynamic therapy vs. CBT have been conducted for most MH problems, yet they suggest both approaches are equally effective for all issues, (2) they ignore the many psychological problems for which CBT has proven efficacy and psychodynamic therapy has little or none, (3) they ignore the patently pseudoscientific nature of psychodynamic theories (e.g., assuming in the absence of any evidence present-day problems are caused by repressed childhood unconscious conflicts), (4) many of the studies in this meta-analysis compare psychodynamic therapy to suboptimal forms of CBT, typically in studies conducted by psychodynamic proponents who did not collaborate with CBT researchers who could help ensure a proper test vs. the best available CBT intervention, and (5) because psychodynamic therapy takes so long, the usual manner in which researchers conduct comparative trials is to make CBT last much longer than necessary in order to equate the approaches in number of sessions. Case in point, standard CBT for panic disorder is generally conducted in 12-session trials, though studies show it works just as well in 5 sessions. But in the Milrod et al. 2016 study, CBT was stretched to twice its normal length (19-24) sessions just so it could be compared to psychodynamic therapy. No CBT scientist/clinician I know takes this study seriously or would be caught dead delivering CBT this way, yet psychodynamic folks use it as evidence their approach is just as good.