Group psychotherapy for eating disorders: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the current meta-analysis, we review the effect of group psychotherapy compared to both wait-list controls and other active treatments for adults with eating disorders (EDs). METHOD: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provide direct comparisons with a total of 1,853 participants were included. RESULTS: Group psychotherapy is significantly more effective than wait-list controls at achieving abstinence rates of binge eating and/or purging (RR = 5.51, 95% CI: 3.73, 8.12), decreasing the frequency of binge eating and/or purging (g = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.90), and reducing related ED psychopathology (g = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.66) after treatment. The effects of group psychotherapy and other active treatments (e.g., behavioral weight loss, self-help, individual psychotherapy) did not differ on any outcome at post-treatment or at follow-ups. Group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and other forms of group psychotherapy did not differ significantly on outcomes at any time point. DISCUSSION: Additional research is needed to evaluate other group psychotherapy approaches, along with CBT, to provide more evidence-based treatment options for individuals with an ED. Group psychotherapy appears as effective as other common treatments and is perhaps more cost-effective than the most popular treatment, individual psychotherapy. Only 8.33% of comparisons in the current meta-analysis had at least 80% power to detect a moderate effect (d = .50) and we recommend that future RCTs be adequately powered.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".