↓ Skip to main content

The ABBA study – approach bias modification in bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ABBA study – approach bias modification in bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1596-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timo Brockmeyer, Ulrike Schmidt, Hans-Christoph Friederich

Abstract

The core symptoms of bulimia nervosa (BN) and binge eating disorder (BED) are recurrent episodes of binge eating. Despite negative psychological and physical consequences, BN/BED patients show uncontrollable approach tendencies towards food. This cognitive bias occurs at an early stage of information processing. Cognitive bias modification (CBM) directly targets such biases and has been shown to be effective in treating several mental disorders. In alcohol addiction, automatic action tendencies towards alcohol cues and relapse rates were successfully reduced by a specific form of CBM, termed approach bias modification. Based on these findings and data from a proof-of-concept study in people with high levels of food craving, CBM is considered a promising new treatment approach for BN/BED. Given the similarities between BN/BED and addictive disorders, the rationale for using approach bias modification appears to be particularly strong. The aim of the present study is to examine whether, compared to a sham training, computerised approach bias modification (10 sessions) can reduce binge-eating episodes in BN/BED patients from pre-treatment to follow-up. Additionally, we will investigate whether this CBM programme also reduces global eating disorder psychopathology, trait and cue-elicited food craving, food intake as well as approach and attentional bias towards visual food cues. Treatment acceptance will be determined by attrition rates and responses on a feedback form. This is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial with two parallel arms. A total of 54 BN/BED patients will be recruited. Approach bias towards food will be retrained by a computer task adopting an implicit learning paradigm. Patients in the control condition (sham) will conduct a similar task but will not be trained to avoid food cues. Methods against bias include public registration, randomisation by a central study office, standardisation of the treatments and blinding of assessors. Furthermore, the session number and duration will be equivalent in the two conditions. This is the first registered randomised controlled trial of approach bias modification in a clinical BN/BED sample. Results from this study will provide an indication of the efficacy of approach bias modification training for BN/BED and the potential mechanisms of action underlying this treatment. DRKS00010231 (retrospectively registered on 24 March 2016; first version).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Unspecified 6 5%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2016.
All research outputs
#23,319,379
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#39
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,289
of 332,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#39
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 6 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.