Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40640949›Full record

ReviewJournal of eating disorders2025

Personalised and precision mental health in eating disorders: why routine outcome measurement is key.

Amelia Austin, Karina L Allen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Amelia AustinMathison Centre for Mental Health Research & Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4979-4847
Karina L AllenCentre for Eating and Weight Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK. karina.allen@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/X030539/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over a decade, the mental health field has been interested in precision treatment using psychopharmacological interventions. More recently, this interest has expanded to include psychotherapy, which is the primary treatment modality for eating disorders. Personalised medicine and precision treatment are also seen as priorities for the eating disorder field by those with lived experience and carers, clinicians and researchers. However, precision treatment necessitates the collection of large amounts of clinical data. Three frameworks exist or have been proposed for the purpose of gathering large-scale routine clinical outcomes in eating disorder services: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) eating disorder set, the Australia national minimum dataset, and the Eating Disorders Clinical Research Network. Despite the emergence of these frameworks, challenges exist with implementation. This paper outlines the rationale for the collection of routine outcome data in eating disorder treatment settings, the three existing frameworks proposed, and considerations for implementation and scaling. These include clinical and practice applications, technical aspects, statistics, and contextual factors. We invite attention to our recommendations and collaborative approaches to facilitate progress towards precision treatment in eating disorders.

Indexed as

Anorexia nervosaARFIDBulimia nervosaElectronic health recordsMeasurement-based carePatient reported outcomePersonalized treatmentPrecision psychiatryRoutine outcome measurement

Identifiers

PMID40640949
PMCPMC12247249

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.