Trial reportPloS one2026
Feasibility and acceptability outcomes of the InMe trial - a randomised controlled trial in participants with subclinical eating and somatic symptom disorders.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Dysregulations in interoception have been associated with mental health disorders including eating and somatic symptom disorders. The present study addresses the feasibility and acceptability of a novel, behavioural intervention (InMe) in a healthy sample with low, self-reported interoception. The efficacy of the InMe intervention against an active control arm was tested in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) reported elsewhere, while the feasibility and acceptability of InMe were assessed in parallel and are fully reported here. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention arm (InMe) or active control arm and stratified according to their self-reported gender and a cut-off score from the Eating Disorders Questionnaire (EDE-Q). Feasibility and accessibility measures included self-report scales and questionnaires, assessor checklists and ratings, as well as behavioural and physiological responses. Data was gathered from a total of 102 participants and encompassed trial recruitment and retention rates, the suitability of measurement tools, as well as the feasibility and acceptability of stressors, interventions and other trial procedures. The study found satisfactory feasibility in recruitment procedures, trial measurement tools, and intervention procedures. Participants perceived the intervention as acceptable, though minor adjustments for trial optimisation were identified. Overall, this feasibility study provided promising evidence regarding the acceptability and feasibility of an interoception based intervention in a RCT context. These findings offer valuable insights particularly for the design of future clinical trials for testing the efficacy of this intervention further in clinical populations.
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.