[treis]

Your misrepresenting the data. Your first link says:

>CBT is significantly more effective than no therapy in reducing symptoms of anxiety in children and young people.

>No clear evidence indicates that one way of providing CBT is more effective than another (e.g. in a group, individually, with parents).

>CBT is no more effective than other 'active therapies' such as self-help books.

[_game_of_life]

How have I misrepresented it by saying it is as effective as a self-help book?

The thing about therapy, is that you usually want benefits to last for a duration that makes the effort put in worthwhile.

>Only four studies looked at longer-term outcomes after CBT.

>No clear evidence showed maintained improvement in symptoms of anxiety among children and young people.

If you take a look at the results further they conclude:

>The few controlled follow-up studies (n = 4) indicate that treatment gains in the remission of anxiety diagnosis are not statistically significant.

I'd like to remind you that "significant" in the context of a meta-analysis means "statistically significant." If something performs at the level of a self-help book, most lay people would agree that is not a very effective treatment, even if it has a statistically significant impact.