Outcomes in people with eating disorders: a transdiagnostic and disorder‐specific systematic review, meta‐analysis and multivariable meta‐regression analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorders (EDs) are known to be associated with high mortality and often chronic and severe course, but a recent comprehensive systematic review of their outcomes is currently missing. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined cohort studies and clinical trials published between 1980 and 2021 that reported, for DSM/ICD-defined EDs, overall ED outcomes (i.e., recovery, improvement and relapse, all-cause and ED-related hospitalization, and chronicity); the same outcomes related to purging, binge eating and body weight status; as well as mortality. We included 415 studies (N=88,372, mean age: 25.7±6.9 years, females: 72.4%, mean follow-up: 38.3±76.5 months), conducted in persons with anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED), other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED), and/or mixed EDs, from all continents except Africa. In all EDs pooled together, overall recovery occurred in 46% of patients (95% CI: 44-49, n=283, mean follow-up: 44.9±62.8 months, no significant ED-group difference). The recovery rate was 42% at <2 years, 43% at 2 to <4 years, 54% at 4 to <6 years, 59% at 6 to <8 years, 64% at 8 to <10 years, and 67% at ≥10 years. Overall chronicity occurred in 25% of patients (95% CI: 23-29, n=170, mean follow-up: 59.3±71.2 months, no significant ED-group difference). The chronicity rate was 33% at <2 years, 40% at 2 to <4 years, 23% at 4 to <6 years, 25% at 6 to <8 years, 12% at 8 to <10 years, and 18% at ≥10 years. Mortality occurred in 0.4% of patients (95% CI: 0.2-0.7, n=214, mean follow-up: 72.2±117.7 months, no significant ED-group difference). Considering observational studies, the mortality rate was 5.2 deaths/1,000 person-years (95% CI: 4.4-6.1, n=167, mean follow-up: 88.7±120.5 months; significant difference among EDs: p<0.01, range: from 8.2 for mixed ED to 3.4 for BN). Hospitalization occurred in 26% of patients (95% CI: 18-36, n=18, mean follow-up: 43.2±41.6 months; significant difference among EDs: p<0.001, range: from 32% for AN to 4% for BN). Regarding diagnostic migration, 8% of patients with AN migrated to BN and 16% to OSFED; 2% of patients with BN migrated to AN, 5% to BED, and 19% to OSFED; 9% of patients with BED migrated to BN and 19% to OSFED; 7% of patients with OSFED migrated to AN and 10% to BN. Children/adolescents had more favorable outcomes across and within EDs than adults. Self-injurious behaviors were associated with lower recovery rates in pooled EDs. A higher socio-demographic index moderated lower recovery and higher chronicity in AN across countries. Specific treatments associated with higher recovery rates were family-based therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy, and nutritional interventions for AN; self-help, CBT, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), psychodynamic therapy, nutritional and pharmacological treatments for BN; CBT, nutritional and pharmacological interventions, and DBT for BED; and CBT and psychodynamic therapy for OSFED. In AN, pharmacological treatment was associated with lower recovery, and waiting list with higher mortality. These results should inform future research, clinical practice and health service organization for persons with EDs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".