ArticleJournal of eating disorders2025
First do no harm: the impact of assessing for ultra-processed food addiction on dietary restraint in patients with and without eating disorders during residential treatment.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUltra-processed food addiction (UPFA) is increasingly recognized but remains controversial among eating disorder (ED) clinicians, partly due to concerns that introducing food addiction concepts might intensify dietary restraint, a core feature of EDs. This study examined whether integrating UPFA assessment, psychoeducation and treatment into residential treatment (RT) impacts ED symptomatology, particularly dietary restraint.
methodsAdults (N = 132) admitted to RT completed the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and the modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (mYFAS2.0) at admission and discharge. Changes in EDE-Q global scores and EDE-Q restraint subscale scores were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (RANOVA) with ED diagnosis as a between-subjects factor and age, gender identity, sexual orientation, and admission BMI as covariates. Pearson correlations between mYFAS2.0 and EDE-Q scores were calculated at both time points to assess construct overlap.
resultsBoth EDE-Q global and EDE-Q restraint scores decreased significantly in the ED patients (p ≤ 0.001) and remained low in the non-ED patients. mYFAS2.0 scores were not significantly correlated with EDE-Q restraint scores at either admission or discharge, while they were weakly correlated with EDE-Q global scores at both time points.
conclusionsUPFA-informed assessment, psychoeducation and/or treatment did not increase EDE-Q restraint scores. Instead, they declined significantly in ED patients, with no worsening observed. Modest post-treatment correlations between UPFA and EDE-Q global scores but not EDE-Q restraint scores suggest partial but incomplete overlap between EDs and UPFA symptomatology, with caloric restraint confined to EDs alone. These results support their nosological distinction and the feasibility of concurrent treatment without worsening ED-related dietary restraint.
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.