ArticleJournal of eating disorders2025
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of interventions for universal, selective and indicated prevention of eating disorders: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical staging for eating disorders: A scoping review and update.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Article
- Teacher-Led Universal Eating Disorder Prevention Programmes in Schools: A Scoping Review.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEating disorders (EDs) are severe psychiatric conditions, with prevalence rates ranging from 5.5 to 17.9% in women and 0.6 to 2.4% in men. EDs carry a high risk of chronicity and mortality, highlighting the need for effective prevention strategies. Primary prevention can target the entire population (universal), high-risk groups (selective), or individuals with early signs (indicated). Despite substantial research, prior reviews often show limitations, such as single-author data extraction, lack of quality assessment, reliance on endpoint data, exclusion of obesity prevention programs, or outdated findings. No review has yet evaluated the comparative effectiveness of multiple interventions across risk groups. This article outlines a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) protocol to assess the comparative effectiveness of various ED preventive interventions across different prevention types and populations.
methodsEligible studies will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children, adolescents, and adults across a range of settings. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL. All prevention types (universal, selective, indicated) will be included. Interventions will encompass psychological, educational, physical, and nutritional approaches aimed at preventing EDs, disordered eating, or negative body image and/or reducing risk factors. Coprimary outcomes will be ED diagnostic symptoms, overall ED pathology, ED onset, and intervention all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). A frequentist NMA framework will be used for data synthesis, with sensitivity and subgroup analyses to identify effect modifiers. DISCUSSION: This first NMA on ED prevention aims to provide valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, policymakers and the public by identifying the most effective interventions and highlighting research gaps. The findings will inform intervention selection for specific populations and guide future prevention strategies to reduce the burden of EDs on affected individuals, their communities, and wider society. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024498102.
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.