Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40776900›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2025

The Meta-Analytic Evidence Is In-Time to Get on and Improve Our Treatments.

Tracey D Wade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Meta-Analytic Evidence Is In-Time to Get on and Improve Our Treatments.The International journal of eating disorders · 2025
    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

1 author.

Tracey D WadeFlinders Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, Blackbird Initiative, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4402-770X

Funding

Investigator Grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 2025665
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The good news is that Bruns and colleagues' robust meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of individual Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for eating disorders has provided us with evidence congruent with other recent meta-analyses in this area. The emerging message, however, holds up an unflattering mirror reflecting the following regarding the use of CBT with eating disorders; we do not know whether to use CBT with adults who have anorexia nervosa; CBT is better than doing nothing with the other eating disorder diagnostic groups; any form of therapist input will suffice as the length and intensity of the CBT make no difference to outcomes; all evidence-based therapeutic approaches seem to perform just as well as CBT. The field needs to rise to the challenge to offer something more informative for clinicians and consumers alike, and three research strategies to achieve this are described. Evidence-based approaches to improving overall outcomes of all our therapies for eating disorders are also described. The use of these approaches in our existing therapies can be evaluated to examine whether these achieve improved remission rates. The challenge for our research community is not in producing further meta-analyses but in improving CBT for people with eating disorders.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyFeeding and Eating DisordersMeta-Analysis as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicactive comparatorsadaptive trialscognitive behavior therapymeta‐analysis

Identifiers

PMID40776900
PMCPMC12605743

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.