Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevention of eating disorders: A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials

Watson, Hunna J., Joyce, Tara, French, Elizabeth, Willan, Vivienne, Kane, Robert T., Tanner‐Smith, Emily E., McCormack, Julie, Dawkins, Hayley, Hoiles, Kimberley J., Egan, Sarah J.·2016·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of universal, selective, and indicated eating disorder prevention. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases to January 2016. Studies were included if they were randomized, controlled trials (RCT) and tested an eating disorder prevention program. We retrieved 13 RCTs of universal prevention (N = 3,989 participants, 55% female, M age = 13.0 years), 85 RCTs of selective prevention (N = 11,949 participants, 99% female, M age = 17.6 years), and 8 RCTs of indicated prevention (N = 510 participants, 100% female, M age = 20.1 years). Meta‐analysis was performed with selective prevention trials. As there were a limited number of universal and indicated trials, narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Media literacy had the most support for universal prevention. Most universal approaches showed significant modest effects on risk factors. Dissonance‐based was the best supported approach for selective prevention. Cognitive‐behavior therapy (CBT), a healthy weight program, media literacy, and psychoeducation, were also effective for selective prevention and effects were maintained at follow‐up. CBT was supported for indicated prevention and effects were maintained at follow‐up. Discussion: The modest effects for universal prevention were likely due to floor effects. The evidence for selective prevention suggests that empirically supported approaches should be disseminated on a wider basis. Our findings suggest CBT should be offered for indicated populations. Overall, results suggest efficacy of several prevention programs for reducing risk for eating disorders, and that wider dissemination is required. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.22577

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Watson, H. J., Joyce, T., French, E., Willan, V., Kane, R. T., Tanner‐Smith, E. E., McCormack, J., Dawkins, H., Hoiles, K. J., & Egan, S. J.
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-18
Volume
49
Issue
9
Pages
833-862
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W2477647214
Cited by
200
References
30
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevention of eating disorders: A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/eat.22577
The paper
Watson, H. J., Joyce, T., French, E., Willan, V., Kane, R. T., Tanner‐Smith, E. E., McCormack, J., Dawkins, H., Hoiles, K. J., & Egan, S. J. (2016). Prevention of eating disorders: A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. International Journal of Eating Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22577

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.