↓ Skip to main content

Individual psychological therapy in the outpatient treatment of adults with anorexia nervosa

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
327 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
Individual psychological therapy in the outpatient treatment of adults with anorexia nervosa
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003909.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillipa J Hay, Angélica M Claudino, Stephen Touyz, Ghada Abd Elbaky

Abstract

Anorexia nervosa is a disorder with high morbidity and significant mortality. It is most common in young adult women, in whom the incidence may be increasing. The focus of treatment has moved to an outpatient setting, and a number of differing psychological therapies are presently used in treatment. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was last published in 2008. To assess the effects of specific individual psychological therapies for anorexia nervosa in adults or older adolescents treated in an outpatient setting. We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (16 July 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from: the Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We screened reference lists of all included studies and sent letters to identified, notable researchers requesting information on unpublished or ongoing studies. All randomised controlled trials of one or more individual outpatient psychological therapies for adults with anorexia nervosa, as defined by DSM-5 or similar international criteria. We selected a range of outcome variables, including physical state, severity of eating disorder attitudes and beliefs, interpersonal function, and general psychiatric symptom severity. Continuous outcome data comparisons used the mean or standardised mean difference (MD or SMD), and binary outcome comparisons used the risk ratio (RR). Two review authors (PH and AC or ST) extracted data independently. We identified 10 trials from the search, with a total of 599 anorexia nervosa participants, and included them in the review. Seven had been identified in the previous versions of this review and we now include three new trials. We now deem one previously identified ongoing trial to be ineligible, and six ongoing trials are new for this update. Two of the 10 trials included children. Trials tested diverse psychological therapies and comparability was poor. Risks of bias were mostly evident through lack of blinded outcome assessments (in 60% of studies) and incomplete data reporting (attrition bias).The results suggest that treatment as usual (TAU) when delivered by a non-eating-disorder specialist or similar may be less efficacious than focal psychodynamic therapy. This was suggested for a primary outcome of recovery by achievement of a good or intermediate outcome on the Morgan and Russell Scale (RR 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 40 participants; very low-quality evidence). However there were no differences between cognitive analytic therapy and TAU for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 71 participants; very low-quality evidence), nor for body mass index (BMI). There were no differences in overall dropout rates between individual psychological therapies and TAU.Two trials found a non-specific specialist therapy (Specialist Supportive Clinical Management) or an Optimised TAU delivered by therapists with eating disorder expertise was similar in outcomes to cognitive behaviour therapy (BMI MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.91; 197 participants, low-quality evidence). When comparing individual psychological therapies with each other, no specific treatment was consistently superior to any other specific approach. Dietary advice as a control arm had a 100% non-completion rate in one trial (35 participants). None of the trials identified any adverse effects. Insufficient power was problematic for the majority of trials. There was a suggestion in one trial that focal psychodynamic therapy might be superior to TAU, but this is in the context of TAU performing poorly. An alternative control condition of dietary advice alone appeared to be unacceptable, but again this is based on just one trial. Owing to the risk of bias and limitations of studies, notably small sample sizes, we can draw no specific conclusions about the effects of specific individual psychological therapies for anorexia nervosa in adults or older adolescents. Larger RCTs of longer treatment duration and follow-up are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 321 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 16%
Unspecified 48 15%
Researcher 39 12%
Student > Bachelor 37 11%
Other 84 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 107 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 74 23%
Unspecified 58 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 7%
Social Sciences 22 7%
Other 42 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,169,222
of 12,802,184 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,979
of 10,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,783
of 233,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,802,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 233,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.