Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35150473›Full record

Trial reportEuropean eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association2022

'My dad was like "it's your brain, what are you doing?"': Participant experiences of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in severe enduring anorexia nervosa.

Bethan Dalton, Amelia Austin, Brian C F Ching, Rachel Potterton, Jessica McClelland, Savani Bartholdy, Maria Kekic, Iain C Campbell, Ulrike Schmidt

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bethan DaltonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0898-1926
Amelia AustinDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4979-4847
Brian C F ChingDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Rachel PottertonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4323-4814
Jessica McClellandDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Savani BartholdyDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Maria KekicDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Iain C CampbellDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Ulrike SchmidtDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Section of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising emerging treatment for anorexia nervosa (AN). However, to date, patients' views and experiences of this treatment have not been fully explored. To assess these, we integrated a qualitative study into a feasibility randomised controlled trial of rTMS in individuals with severe enduring AN.

methodTwenty-nine (of 34) trial participants contributed to this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted 3-months following the completion of rTMS treatment (4-months post-randomisation), prior to unblinding. Transcripts were analysed using content analysis.

resultsrTMS was deemed an acceptable but time-consuming treatment. Many emphasised how their lives had changed to some extent during, but mainly after treatment by making them more positive, open-minded, flexible and willing to try new things in relation to their AN and other aspects of their lives.

conclusionsThese qualitative data will be valuable in shaping participant information, recruitment and planning of future large-scale trials of rTMS in AN.

trial registrationISRCTN14329415, registered 23rd July 2015, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14329415.

Indexed as

Anorexia NervosaTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBrainHumansQualitative ResearchTreatment Outcomeanorexia nervosacontent analysiseating disordersqualitativerepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)

Identifiers

PMID35150473
PMCPMC9304183
OpenAlexW4211026614

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.