Absolute and relative outcomes of cognitive behavior therapy for eating disorders in adults: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) is the best examined treatment for eating disorders. However, previous meta-analyses of cognitive–behavioral therapy have not examined absolute outcomes, which are important from a clinical perspective. We updated a meta-analysis and conducted new searches in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We included randomized trials comparing CBT with control conditions in adults with a diagnosed eating disorder. We used random effects models in all analyses. We included 36 trials with 44 comparisons between CBT and controls (2,809 participants), 22 trials on binge eating disorder (BED), 11 on bulimia nervosa (BN), and three on anorexia nervosa and mixed disorders. The overall effect of CBT compared to controls was g = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71; 1.04), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 74; 95% CI: 65; 81; PI: −0.06; 1.81) and no significant difference between BED and BN. Effects were smaller studies with low risk of bias. The absolute abstinence rate was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.31; 0.43) for CBT and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.08; 0.12) in controls. ly effective in the treatment of bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder, but there is also a large group of patients who do not respond sufficiently.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".