"is no more effective than usual" Hm, interesting phrasing. Is this another way of saying "was found to be just as effective as the more expensive standard tr

"is no more effective than usual" Hm, interesting phrasing. Is this another way of saying "was found to be just as effective as the more expensive standard treatment"? > There was no significant difference between usual GP care, Beating the Blues plus usual care, or MoodGYM plus usual care at four, 12 or 24 months. No significant difference, so it's every bit as good. > CBT delivered online or via a computer was thought to offer a potential low-cost alternative. And it costs less. So yes, they found it is less expensive and works just as well as the standard treatment, but choose to phrase it in a way to indicate the study had failed by saying "is no more effective" which misleadingly implies it might be less effective, rather than the more accurate "is just as effective", which is more clear and accurate given that there was "no significant difference".