Efficacy of Eating Disorder Focused Family Therapy for Adolescents With Anorexia Nervosa: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and evaluate the efficacy of eating disorder focused family therapy (FT-ED) in comparison to all other forms of psychotherapy for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa. A secondary aim is to assess the relative efficacy of different variations of FT-ED (e.g., shorter vs. longer dose, parent-focused). METHODS: A search with relevant terms was systematically conducted on four databases. Twenty-three publications across 18 randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Outcomes of interest included variables related to weight, eating psychopathology, and remission status. Study quality was assessed, and data were extracted by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Adolescents receiving FT-ED gained significantly more weight by the end of treatment in comparison to those receiving individual psychotherapy. FT-ED that was delivered just to parents or to parents and child separately offered preferable weight outcomes and rates of recovery at the end of treatment in comparison to conjoint FT-ED. No other outcomes tested in the meta-analysis were statistically significant at the end of treatment or follow-up. DISCUSSION: Currently available data suggest the use of FT-ED in its conjoint or separated/parent focused format is the best outpatient treatment option for adolescents with anorexia nervosa when immediate weight gain is paramount. The variability of outcome measurement, including the tools used and timepoints chosen, limit comparison among no more than a handful of studies. The field would benefit from the standardization of measurement and reporting guidelines for future clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD42023396263.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".