Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42057225›Full record

ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026

Pathways to improved treatment of anorexia nervosa: a need for reconceptualization.

Janet Polivy, Stephen Touyz

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Janet PolivyDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3, Canada. polivy@psych.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3997-8586
Stephen TouyzFaculty of Medicine and Health, InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGiven anorexia nervosa's (AN) status as one of the most difficult psychiatric disorders to treat, with the highest mortality rate, with millions of dollars spent on researching its treatment, and decades of assiduous study, it is surprising and distressing that treatment outcomes have remained essentially unimproved since the first treatments were presented over 70 years ago. Recent theorizing argues for a more personalized approach to treatment but cannot yet specify what that should look like.

methodThe current paper argues that classifying AN patients into more useful subgroups is necessary for treatment-particularly individualized treatment-to progress, rather than treating the disorder as a unitary phenomenon based on issues concerning body image. The literature on contributors and characteristics of groups of AN patients is critically reviewed including comorbidities with other psychiatric disorders, environmental stressors and life events, and pre-existing personality makeup.

resultsThe examination of the data helps to identify what distinguishes individuals who respond to treatment and recover from AN from those who remain disordered. We suggest aspects of AN that contribute to treatment success or failure and suggest ways to ascertain how the disorder develops in different individuals. DISCUSSION: We conclude that more attention is needed to distinguish between people who develop the disorder in reaction to environmental stressors or events, people who appear to have a physiological, possibly genetic predisposition to psychiatric dysfunction, and people who have both a predisposition to disorder and an environmental trigger.

Indexed as

Anorexia nervosaEating disordersPhenomenologyRecoveryTreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID42057225
PMCPMC13126749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.