ArticleBMJ open2023
Gaining consensus on clinical quality outcomes for eating disorders: Framework for the development of an Australian national minimum dataset.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world patient outcomes for telehealth-delivered, remote eating disorder treatment: a scoping review.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Review
- Learning From Those Who Have Lived: A Scoping Review Exploring the Involvement of Lived Experience Co-Design in Eating Disorder Research Methodologies.The International journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Validated and culturally specific screening tools and early response programs for the detection and prevention of eating disorders among First Nations peoples in Australia: a scoping review.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Considerations for informing precision psychiatry in eating disorders: Foundations for future practice.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Agreeing a set of biopsychosocial variables for collection across the UK Eating Disorders Clinical Research Network: a consensus study using adapted nominal group technique.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- Personalised and precision mental health in eating disorders: why routine outcome measurement is key.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Review
- Treating the individual: moving towards personalised eating disorder care.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Review
- Mortality and mental health funding-do the dollars add up? Eating disorder research funding in Australia from 2009 to 2021: a portfolio analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEating disorders (EDs) are complex psychiatric illnesses requiring multidisciplinary care across both mental and medical healthcare settings. Currently, no nationally comprehensive, consistent, agreed on or mandated data set or data collection strategy exists for EDs in Australia: thus, little is known about the outcomes of care nor treatment pathways taken by individuals with EDs. InsideOut Institute was contracted by the Australian Government Department of Health to develop a minimum dataset (MDS) for the illness group with consideration given to data capture mechanisms and the scoping of a national registry.
designA four-step modified Delphi methodology was used, including national consultations followed by three rounds of quantitative feedback by an expert panel.
settingDue to social distancing protocols throughout the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the study was conducted online using video conferencing (Zoom and Microsoft Teams) (Step 1), email communication and the REDCap secure web-based survey platform (Steps 2-4).
participants14 data management organisations, 5 state and territory government departments of health, 2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advising organisations and 28 stakeholders representing public and private health sectors across Australia participated in consultations. 123 ED experts (including lived experience) participated in the first quantitative round of the Delphi survey. Retention was high, with 80% of experts continuing to the second round and 73% to the third.
main outcome measuresItems and categories endorsed by the expert panel (defined a priori as >85% rating an item or category 'very important' or 'imperative').
resultsHigh consensus across dataset items and categories led to the stratification of an identified MDS. Medical status and quality of life were rated the most important outcomes to collect in an MDS. Other items meeting high levels of consensus included anxiety disorders, depression and suicidality; type of treatment being received; body mass index and recent weight change.
conclusionsUnderstanding presentation to and outcomes from ED treatment is vital to drive improvements in healthcare delivery. A nationally agreed MDS has been defined to facilitate this understanding and support improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.