Considerations in selecting comparison conditions in psychotherapy trials: Recommendations for future research.

Objective: In this commentary, we outline conceptual and methodological concerns we have with a recent randomized trial of two group-delivered transdiagnostic eating disorder treatments (Stice et al., 2023), particularly regarding the description, implementation, and labeling of the comparison condition.

Method: We discuss the selection of a control condition in comparative psychotherapy trials; the distinction between adaptations and other types of intervention modifications; the need for processes to ensure that an intervention is developmentally and diagnostically appropriate; and the provision of detailed descriptions of interventions in articles and supplementary materials, as well as making manuals publicly available, to ensure that reviewers and readers can understand the interventions delivered and can accurately interpret the results.

Results: We highlight the potential downstream implications of mislabeling an intervention and conclude that the comparison condition in Stice et al.'s (2023) article should be reclassified to avoid misinterpretation.

Conclusions: There are published frameworks and guidelines available that promote more detail, precision, and transparency about interventions being tested in clinical trials. We believe it is time for journals to implement these guidelines to ensure that reviewers and readers can fully understand what interventions were tested to draw informed conclusions from the study, replicate research findings, and reliably deliver these interventions in clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).