Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30663033›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Inpatient versus outpatient care, partial hospitalisation and waiting list for people with eating disorders.

Phillipa J Hay, Stephen Touyz, Angélica M Claudino, Sanja Lujic, Caroline A Smith, Sloane Madden

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Incidence of Anorexia Nervosa in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Anorexia nervosa: 150 years of critical theory.Journal of eating disorders · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Phillipa J HayTranslational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, 2751.
Stephen Touyz
Angélica M Claudino
Sanja Lujic
Caroline A Smith
Sloane Madden
Western Sydney University · AUChildren's Hospital at Westmead · AUUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Sydney · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines recommend outpatient care for the majority of people with an eating disorder. The optimal use of inpatient treatment or combination of inpatient and partial hospital care is disputed and practice varies widely.

objectivesTo assess the effects of treatment setting (inpatient, partial hospitalisation, or outpatient) on the reduction of symptoms and increase in remission rates in people with:1. Anorexia nervosa and atypical anorexia nervosa;2. Bulimia nervosa and other eating disorders. SEARCH

methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 2 July 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 20 November 2015). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov (6 July 2018). We ran a forward citation search on the Web of Science to identify additional reports citing any of the included studies, and screened reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews identified during our searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that tested the efficacy of inpatient, outpatient, or partial hospital settings for treatment of eating disorder in adults, adolescents, and children, whose diagnoses were determined according to the DSM-5, or other internationally accepted diagnostic criteria. We excluded trials of treatment setting for medical or psychiatric complications or comorbidities (e.g. hypokalaemia, depression) of an eating disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane procedures to select studies, extract and analyse data, and interpret and present results. We extracted data according to the DSM-5 criteria. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias. We used the mean (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data outcomes, and the risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes. We included the 95% confidence interval (CI) with each result. We presented the quality of the evidence and estimate of effect for weight or body mass index (BMI) and acceptability (number who completed treatment), in a 'Summary of findings' table for the comparison for which we had sufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsWe included five trials in our review. Four trials included a total of 511 participants with anorexia nervosa, and one trial had 55 participants with bulimia nervosa. Three trials are awaiting classification, and may be included in future versions of this review. We assessed a risk of bias from lack of blinding of participants and therapists in all trials, and unclear risk for allocation concealment and randomisation in one study.We had planned four comparisons, and had data for meta-analyses for one. For anorexia nervosa, there may be little or no difference between specialist inpatient care and active outpatient or combined brief hospital and outpatient care in weight gain at 12 months after the start of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.05; 2 trials, 232 participants; low-quality evidence). People may be more likely to complete treatment when randomised to outpatient care settings, but this finding is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88; 3 trials, 319 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for these outcomes because of risks of bias, small numbers of participants and events, and variable level of specialist expertise and intensity of treatment.We had no data, or data from only one trial for the primary outcomes for each of the other three comparisons.No trials measured weight or acceptance of treatment for anorexia nervosa, when comparing inpatient care provided by a specialist eating disorder service and health professionals and a waiting list, no active treatment, or treatment as usual.There was no clear difference in weight gain between settings, and only slightly more acceptance for the partial hospital setting over specialist inpatient care for weight restoration in anorexia nervosa.There was no clear difference in weight gain or acceptability of treatment between specialist inpatient care and partial hospital care for bulimia nervosa, and other binge eating disorders. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to conclude whether any treatment setting was superior for treating people with moderately severe (or less) anorexia nervosa, or other eating disorders.More research is needed for all comparisons of inpatient care versus alternate care.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareHospitalizationAdolescentAdultAnorexia NervosaBody Mass IndexBody WeightBulimia NervosaConfidence IntervalsFeeding and Eating DisordersHumansLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRemission InductionWaiting ListsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30663033
PMCPMC6353082
OpenAlexW1894996783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.