Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30706243›Full record

ReviewCurrent obesity reports2019

A Critical Examination of the Practical Implications Derived from the Food Addiction Concept.

Adrian Meule

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current obesity reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Food Addiction.Brain sciences · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Decoding the Role of Gut-Microbiome in the Food Addiction Paradigm.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

1 author.

Adrian MeuleDepartment of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Straße 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. adrian.meule@sbg.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAdopting an addiction perspective on eating disorders and obesity may have practical implications for diagnostic classification, prevention, and treatment of these disorders. The present article critically examines these implications derived from the food addiction concept. RECENT

findingsIntroducing food addiction as a new disorder in diagnostic classification system seems redundant as most individuals with an addiction-like eating behavior are already covered by established eating disorder diagnoses. Food addiction may be a useful metaphor in the treatment of binge eating, but would be inappropriate for the majority of obese individuals. Implying an addiction to certain foods is not necessary when applying certain approaches inspired by the addiction field for prevention and treatment of obesity. The usefulness of abstinence models in the treatment of eating disorders and obesity needs to be rigorously tested in future studies. Some practical implications derived from the food addiction concept provide promising avenues for future research (e.g., using an addiction framework in the treatment of binge eating or applying abstinence models). For others, however, the necessity of implying an addiction to some foods needs to be scrutinized.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveFeeding and Eating DisordersFeeding BehaviorFood AddictionHumansPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesBinge eatingEating disordersObesityPreventionSubstance use disordersTreatment

Identifiers

PMID30706243
PMCPMC6424934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.