ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
"Normal" vs. "difficult" cases with eating disorders: the therapists' perspective.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
Introduction: Patients with an eating disorder (ED) are considered difficult to treat. We aimed to identify the characteristics of patients with an ED, which are considered especially challenging to treat from the therapist's perspective. Methods: Psychotherapists with experience in ED treatment were asked to describe a "normal" as well as a "difficult" case they treated lately, using an online-survey. They described their patients by filling in a list of symptoms and their severity, on personality traits and functioning as well as a list of possible therapeutic challenges experienced over the course of treatment. Results: 127 psychotherapists were recruited. "Difficult" cases were characterized by variables which could be related to three areas: patients´ motivation (higher level of ambivalence), interactional behavior/personality traits (more antagonism) and somatic complications, such as electrolyte imbalance. Ambivalence was the strongest predictor of case difficulty, followed by patient personality. Therapist or work place characteristics were not associated with experiencing treatments as "normal" or "difficult." Discussion: In particular, aspects related to the therapeutic process and relationship characterize the group of "difficult" cases from a therapist's view.
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.