Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979674›Full record

SynthesisJournal of behavioral medicine2025

Mindfulness-based interventions for binge eating: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jianyi Liu, Mara Tynan, Alexandra Mouangue, Caroline Martin, Stephanie Manasse, Kathryn Godfrey

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Jianyi LiuDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Drexel University, Stratton Hall, 3201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. jl4528@drexel.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5065-1771
Mara TynanJoint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2496-013X
Alexandra MouangueCenter for Weight, Eating and Lifestyle Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-9895-6747
Caroline MartinDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Drexel University, Stratton Hall, 3201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-0762-1025
Stephanie ManasseDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Drexel University, Stratton Hall, 3201 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4666-588X
Kathryn GodfreyCenter for WorkLife Wellbeing, ChristianaCare, Wilmington, DE, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6944-1272

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have gained popularity in recent years in treating binge eating. Previous reviews and meta-analyses have found that MBIs demonstrated medium-large to large effects in reducing binge eating. However, as the literature on this topic has been growing rapidly, an updated review on MBIs' effectiveness is much needed. This study is a 10-year update of the Godfrey, Gallo, & Afari (2015) systematic review and meta-analysis of MBIs for binge eating. PubMED, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched using keywords including binge eating, overeating, objective bulimic episodes, acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, mindfulness, meditation, and mindful eating. Results indicate there has been a large increase in the number of studies testing MBIs for binge eating in the past 10 years with 54 studies meeting inclusion criteria, compared to 19 ten years ago. The majority of the studies yielded large and medium effect sizes. The random effects meta-analysis of between-group effect sizes yielded medium-large effects for MBIs versus non-psychological intervention controls at post-treatment (mean Hedge's g = - 0.65) and follow-up (mean Hedge's g = - 0.71), and negligible effects for MBIs versus active psychological controls at post-treatment (mean Hedge's g = - 0.05) and follow-up (mean Hedge's g = 0.13). Of all MBIs, DBT had the most studies with large effects. More studies examined MBIs that directly targeted binge eating had larger effects than studies with MBIs targeting other health outcomes (with binge eating as a secondary outcome). New studies included in the current review were internationally-conducted, focused more on participants with overweight or obesity, involved more self-help and technology-based components, and had more novel and innovative interventions components. Future MBIs research should conduct more RCTs comparing MBIs with other psychological interventions, conduct meta-analyses to examine the effectiveness of different types of MBIs and intervention targets, and extend follow-up periods.

Indexed as

Binge-Eating DisorderBulimiaMindfulnessHumansAcceptance and commitment therapyBinge eatingDialectical behavior therapyMindfulness

Identifiers

PMID39979674
PMCPMC11893636

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.