Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32595546›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2020

Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Using e-Health Interventions for Patients With Eating Disorders.

Mojtaba Ahmadiankalati, Sabine Steins-Loeber, Georgios Paslakis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Factors influencing adherence to oral nutritional supplementation in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms: a mixed methods systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Research on the demand, preference for oral nutritional supplementation in people with colorectal cancer in the postoperative period: A qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mojtaba AhmadiankalatiEating Disorders Unit, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sabine Steins-LoeberDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
Georgios PaslakisEating Disorders Unit, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Toronto General Hospital · CAUniversity of Bamberg · DEUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a world of technological advancements, electronic devices and services seem to be a promising way to increase patients' engagement in treatment and to help manage their symptoms. Here, we identified and analyzed the current evidence of RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of e-health interventions in the eating disorder (ED) field.

methodsWe screened an initial cluster of 581 papers. In the end, 12 RCTs in clinical ED cohorts were included.

resultsSome studies were conceived as stand-alone interventions, while others were presented as add-ons to ED-specific treatments. Studies varied in the type of EDs under investigation and in the e-health intervention applied (with vs. without therapist support vs. blended interventions; smartphone- vs. web-based). Only four studies reported explicit acceptability measures. Out of those, two reported high acceptability, one reported low acceptability, and one reported no significant difference in acceptability between groups. Four studies reported higher effectiveness of the e-health intervention compared to the control condition, e.g., reduction in maladaptive eating behaviors. Regarding control groups, three used a wait list design and nine had another kind of intervention (e.g., face-to-face CBT, or treatment as usual) as control. DISCUSSION: So far, the evidence for acceptability and effectiveness of e-health interventions in EDs is very limited. There is also a lack of studies in older patients, adolescents, men, sexual and ethnic minorities. Shame/stigma is discussed in the context of e-health interventions for EDs. It remains unclear how severity of EDs affects the effectiveness of e-health interventions, how patients can channel the knowledge they acquire from e-health interventions into their actual behaviors, and how such interventions can better fit the needs of the individual patient to increase acceptability and effectiveness.

Indexed as

anorexia nervosabinge eating disorderbulimia nervosaeating disordere-healthrandomized controlled trial (RCT)telehealthtreatment

Identifiers

PMID32595546
PMCPMC7304304
OpenAlexW3035626469

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.