in JAMA Psychiatry. We thank Drs Flückiger and Munder 2 for bringing these errors to our attention.In this network meta-analysis, we found that "cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), third-wave CBTs, and relaxation therapy outperformed treatment as usual for measures of effectiveness; after removing studies with high risk of bias, only CBT and third-wave CBTs remained superior to treatment as usual, and only CBT was associated with long-term effectiveness. Treatment as usual was not outperformed by any psychotherapy in terms of treatment acceptability." 1 Unfortunately, we had erroneously included a secondary analysis by Craske et al 3 of a primary trial reported by Roy-Byrne et al 4 that was already included in the network. As a result, the same cohort of patients was counted twice. In addition, we misinterpreted a standard error as a standard deviation during data extraction for another study by Roemer et al. 5 We have corrected these errors to now include data for 65 (not 66) studies and 5048 (not 5597) total participants, and we have rerun the analyses.The corrections affect the Abstract, Key Points, text, References (the reference to the article by Craske et al 3 has been removed), Table 2, Figures 1-3, and eAppendixes D-N in Supplement 1. In addition, the 95% CI for behavior therapy vs waiting list no longer crosses the line of no effect in the primary efficacy analysis (previously published: standardized mean difference, −0.61 [95% CI, −1.21 to 0.00]; corrected: standardized mean difference, −0.59 [95% CI, −1.16 to −0.02]). This finding is reported in the corrected Results section of the article, Figure 2, and eAppendix J in Supplement 1. This latter corrected finding is of secondary importance given that the article focuses on treatment as usual as the main comparator.We confirm that, to our knowledge, there are no other errors or corrections. Overall, these corrections do not change the clinical interpretation of the results or conclusions of the published article. We regret these errors and any confusion this may have caused readers, and we appreciate the opportunity to correct our article. 6