Efficacy of family‐based treatment for adolescents with eating disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of Family-Based Treatment (FBT) compared with individual treatment among adolescents with eating disorders. METHOD: The literature was reviewed using the MEDLINE search terms "family therapy AND Anorexia Nervosa," and "family therapy AND Bulimia Nervosa". This produced 12 randomized controlled trials involving adolescents with eating disorders and family therapy which were reviewed carefully for several inclusion criteria including: allocation concealment, intent-to-treat analysis, assessor blinding, behavioral family therapy compared with an individual therapy, and adolescent age group. References from these articles were searched. Only three studies met these strict inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. A random effects model and odds ratio was used for meta-analysis, looking at "remission" as the outcome of choice. RESULTS: When combined in a meta-analysis, end of treatment data indicated that FBT was not significantly different from individual treatment (z = 1.62, p = 0.11). However, when follow-up data from 6 to 12 months were analyzed, FBT was superior to individual treatment (z = 2.94, p < 0.003), and heterogeneity was not significant (p = 0.59). DISCUSSION: Although FBT does not appear to be superior to individual treatment at end of treatment, there appear to be significant benefits at 6-12 month follow-up for adolescents suffering from eating disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".