Cited by 146Eating Disorders and BehaviorsChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Feasibility, acceptability, and proof‐of‐concept for children and adolescents

Open access
Thomas, Jennifer J., Becker, Kendra R., Kuhnle, Megan C., Jo, Jenny H., Harshman, Stephanie G., Wons, Olivia B., Keshishian, Ani C., Hauser, Kristine +6 more·2020·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

Objective: Little is known about the optimal treatment of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and proof‐of‐concept for cognitive‐behavioral therapy for ARFID (CBT‐AR) in children and adolescents. Method: Males and females (ages 10–17 years) were offered 20–30 sessions of CBT‐AR delivered in a family‐based or individual format. Results: Of 25 eligible individuals, 20 initiated treatment, including 17 completers and 3 dropouts. Using intent‐to‐treat analyses, clinicians rated 17 patients (85%) as “much improved” or “very much improved.” ARFID severity scores (on the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview) significantly decreased per both patient and parent report. Patients incorporated a mean of 16.7 ( SD = 12.1) new foods from pre‐ to post‐treatment. The underweight subgroup showed a significant weight gain of 11.5 ( SD = 6.0) pounds, moving from the 10th to the 20th percentile for body mass index. At post‐treatment, 70% of patients no longer met criteria for ARFID. Discussion: This is the first study of an outpatient manualized psychosocial treatment for ARFID in older adolescents. Findings provide evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof‐of‐concept for CBT‐AR. Randomized controlled trials are needed.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This open trial evaluated cognitive-behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (CBT-AR) in children and adolescents ages 10–17, finding preliminary evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept. Of 20 patients who initiated treatment, 17 completed, and 70% no longer met ARFID criteria at post-treatment.

Key findings

  • Of 25 eligible individuals offered CBT-AR, 20 initiated treatment; 17 (85%) completed and 3 (15%) dropped out.
  • Therapists rated 17 patients (85%) as “much improved” or “very much improved” on the CGI; 70% of patients no longer met criteria for ARFID at post-treatment.
  • Patients incorporated a mean of 16.7 (SD = 12.1) new foods from pre- to post-treatment, primarily fruits, vegetables, and proteins.
  • The underweight subgroup (n = 14) gained an average of 11.5 (SD = 6.0) pounds and moved from approximately the 10th to the 20th percentile for BMI; PARDI ARFID severity decreased significantly by both patient and parent report.
  • Two adverse events occurred during Stage 3: one patient vomited during an interoceptive exposure, and one had mouth tingling after tasting nuts and was diagnosed with a nut allergy; both completed CBT-AR.

Methods

  • Open, uncontrolled proof-of-concept trial of manualized CBT-AR delivered in 20–30 sessions over four stages, in either family-supported or individual format, to patients ages 10–17 recruited from a larger ARFID neurobiology study.
  • Twenty patients were included in intent-to-treat analyses; assessments included the PARDI, CGI, Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire, Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, Food Neophobia Scale, height/weight/BMI percentile, STAIC trait subscale, and CDI-2.
  • Analyses calculated uptake, completion, average sessions, credibility/satisfaction, and used paired t-tests with baseline carried forward for non-completers, plus McNemar’s tests for change in ARFID diagnosis.

Limitations

  • The paper states there was no control group, so alternative explanations such as passage of time or therapist attention cannot be ruled out.
  • The sample size was small, pre-treatment PARDI scores were fairly low, and the sample was recruited from a neurobiology study requiring MRI compatibility and offering monetary compensation, limiting generalizability.
  • Only two of 20 participants received individual CBT-AR, limiting conclusions about that format; the paper also notes that larger randomized trials, more severely ill populations, and post-treatment follow-up are needed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.23355

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 31 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Using intent-to-treat analyses, clinicians rated 17 patients (85%) as "much improved" or "very much improved."

    “Using intent-to-treat analyses, clinicians rated 17 patients (85%) as “much improved” or “very much improved.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Therapists' post-treatment CGI ratings are unbiased by therapist allegiance or knowledge of treatment.
  • Findingown data

    Patients incorporated a mean of 16.7 (SD = 12.1) new foods from pre- to post-treatment.

    “Patients incorporated a mean of 16.7 (SD = 12.1) new foods from pre- to post-treatment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The number of new foods incorporated recorded by therapists is an accurate measure of patients' food incorporation.
  • Findingown data

    The underweight subgroup showed a significant weight gain of 11.5 (SD = 6.0) pounds, moving from the 10th to the 20th percentile for body mass index.

    “The underweight subgroup showed a significant weight gain of 11.5 (SD = 6.0) pounds, moving from the 10th to the 20th percentile for body mass index.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    At post-treatment, 70% of patients no longer met criteria for ARFID.

    “At post-treatment, 70% of patients no longer met criteria for ARFID.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Of 25 individuals offered CBT-AR, 20 chose to take it up.

    “Of the 25 individuals whom we offered CBT-AR, 20 chose to take it up.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims. 31
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    ARFID severity scores on the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview significantly decreased per both patient and parent report from pre- to post-treatment.

    “ARFID severity scores (on the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Disorder Interview) significantly decreased per both patient and parent report.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of 25 eligible individuals, 20 initiated treatment, including 17 completers and three dropouts.

    “Of 25 eligible individuals, 20 initiated treatment, including 17 completers and three dropouts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Not all patients responded; three dropped out and 30% continued to meet criteria for ARFID.

    “Of course, not all patients responded. Three dropped out and 30% continued to meet criteria for ARFID.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither anxiety nor depression changed significantly during the course of treatment.

    “Of note, neither anxiety nor depression changed significantly during the course of treatment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The underweight subgroup moved from approximately the 10th percentile to the 20th percentile for BMI from pre- to post-treatment (p < .001), a significant increase with large effect size.

    “The underweight subgroup (n = 14) gained an average of 11.5 (SD = 6.0) pounds from pre- to post-treatment (p < .001), moving from approximately the 10th percentile to the 20th percentile for BMI (p < .001), representing a significant increase with a large effect size.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A second adverse event was grade 1-2 (mild to moderate), related to the protocol, and involved mouth tingling after tasting nuts during a session in the sensory sensitivity module; the patient was referred to the emergency department, given epinephrine, and diagnosed with a nut allergy.

    “In a second adverse event, rated as grade 1–2 (mild to moderate) and related to the protocol, a patient experienced mouth tingling after tasting nuts during a session in the sensory sensitivity module. We referred the second patient to the emergency department where the patient was given epinephrine and diagnosed with a nut allergy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Two non-completers were rated as having "no change" and a third as "minimally improved" on the CGI.

    “Two non-completers were rated as having “no change” and a third as “minimally improved.””
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One adverse event was grade 1 (mild), related to the protocol, and involved a patient vomiting involuntarily during an in-session interoceptive exposure in the lack of interest module.

    “In the first adverse event, rated as grade 1 (mild) and related to the protocol, a patient vomited involuntarily during an in-session interoceptive exposure (i.e., drinking several cups of water to experience fullness) in the lack of interest module.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Only three small randomized controlled trials of ARFID treatment have been published, and all have focused on young children ages 13 months to 12 years.

    “Only three small randomized controlled trials have been published, and all have focused on young children ages 13 months to 12 years (Sharp et al., 2016; Sharp et al., 2017; Lock et al., 2019a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sharp et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sharp et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lock et al., 2019a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Treatments for pediatric feeding disorders typically focus on infants, toddlers, and preschool children and include interventions that are not developmentally appropriate for older children or adolescents.

    “Treatments for pediatric feeding disorders typically focus on infants, toddlers, and preschool children and include interventions that are not developmentally appropriate for older children or adolescents (e.g., Williams & Foxx, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Williams & Foxx, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Treatments for specific phobia target fear of choking or vomiting but lack interventions to promote weight gain or resolve nutrition deficiencies.

    “Treatments for specific phobia target fear of choking (McNally, 1994) or vomiting (Hunter & Antony 2009), but lack interventions to promote weight gain or resolve nutrition deficiencies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites McNally, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hunter & Antony 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Therapists audio-recorded all sessions so that an independent PhD rater could make fidelity and competence ratings based on published measures.

    “Therapists audio-recorded all sessions so that an independent PhD rater (REL) could make fidelity (ranging from 1—“not at all adherent” to 7—“completely adherent”) and competence (ranging from 1—“not at all” to 5—“completely”) ratings based on published measures (Thomas & Eddy, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thomas & Eddy, 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Findings provide evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for CBT-AR.

    “Findings provide evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for CBT-AR.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Improvements in ARFID symptoms, weight, and food variety observed from pre- to post-treatment are attributable to CBT-AR rather than to nonspecific factors, concurrent medical monitoring, or passage of time.
    • Rests on an assumption: The sample of 20 patients who initiated treatment is representative of the broader population of children and adolescents with ARFID.
    • Rests on an assumption: Therapists' post-treatment CGI ratings are unbiased by therapist allegiance or knowledge of treatment.
    • Rests on an assumption: The number of new foods incorporated recorded by therapists is an accurate measure of patients' food incorporation.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    CBT for eating disorders focuses on reducing shape and weight concerns, which are not central to ARFID.

    “CBT for eating disorders focuses on reducing shape and weight concerns (Fairburn et al., 2008; Waller et al., 2019), which are not central to ARFID (Becker et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fairburn et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Waller et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Becker et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Research assistants who were not therapists in the trial conducted all assessments.

    “Research assistants who were not therapists in the trial conducted all assessments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    This is the first study of an outpatient manualized psychosocial treatment for ARFID in older adolescents.

    “This is the first study of an outpatient manualized psychosocial treatment for ARFID in older adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The ORBIT model defines a proof-of-concept study as an uncontrolled within-subjects study that evaluates whether a novel intervention could plausibly offer clinically significant benefit that could later be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

    “ORBIT defines a proof-of-concept study as an uncontrolled within-subjects study that evaluates whether a novel intervention could plausibly offer clinically significant benefit that could later be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Czajkowski et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    There are evidence-based outpatient protocols for psychiatric disorders that resemble ARFID-including pediatric feeding disorders, eating disorders, and anxiety disorders-but none is appropriate for ARFID specifically.

    “There are evidence-based outpatient protocols for psychiatric disorders that resemble ARFID—including pediatric feeding disorders, eating disorders, and anxiety disorders—but none is appropriate for ARFID specifically.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Williams & Foxx, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fairburn et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Waller et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov and approved by the Partners Human Research Committee prior to recruitment.

    “The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02963220) and approved by the Partners Human Research Committee prior to recruitment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The PARDI was administered by independent assessors who did not serve as study therapists.

    “The PARDI was administered by independent assessors (MCK, JHJ, OBW, ACK) who did not serve as study therapists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    CBT-AR demonstrated initial evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for children and adolescents in this uncontrolled trial.

    “In conclusion, CBT-AR demonstrated initial evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for children and adolescents in this uncontrolled trial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Available data suggest that the low appetite reported by those with the lack of interest presentation of ARFID may be neurobiologically mediated.

    “Indeed, available data suggest that the low appetite reported by those with the lack of interest presentation of ARFID may be neurobiologically mediated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Becker et al., under review

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study of an outpatient psychosocial treatment for ARFID in older adolescents.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first study of an outpatient psychosocial treatment for ARFID in older adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sample size was small, so p-values and effect sizes must be interpreted with caution.

    “Second, the sample size was small, so p-values and effect sizes must be interpreted with caution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The initial study of 20 patients provides preliminary evidence for feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for CBT-AR in an outpatient sample of relatively mild severity.

    “Our initial study of 20 patients provides preliminary evidence for feasibility, acceptability, and proof-of-concept for CBT-AR in an outpatient sample of relatively mild severity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The average pre-treatment STAIC and CDI-2 scores in the sample were near the mean for healthy individuals, suggesting little room for improvement.

    “However, the average pre-treatment STAIC and CDI-2 scores in our sample were near the mean for healthy individuals, suggesting little room for improvement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The treatment was provided by one of three PhD therapists; two were authors of the treatment manual and the third was trained and supervised by the manual authors.

    “The treatment was provided by one of three PhD therapists (JJT, KRB, or KTE). Two of the three therapists were the authors of the treatment manual and the third was trained and supervised by the manual authors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Cronbach alpha for PARDI severity was .65 for patients and .57 for parents.

    “Cronbach alpha for severity was lower (.65 for patients and .57 for parents).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Only two of the 20 participants received the individual version of CBT-AR, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn about proof-of-concept for this therapeutic format in youth.

    “Lastly, only two of the 20 participants received the individual version of CBT-AR, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn about proof-of-concept for this therapeutic format in youth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    By both patient- and parent-report, ARFID severity and sensory sensitivity showed significant reductions, whereas patients but not parents reported significant reductions in lack of interest in eating or food.

    “It is notable that, by both patient- and parent- report, ARFID severity and sensory sensitivity showed significant reductions, whereas patients (but not parents) reported significant reductions in lack of interest in eating or food.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The ORBIT model of intervention development suggests that successful proof-of-concept studies be followed up with randomized controlled trials.

    “The ORBIT model of intervention development suggests that successful proof-of-concept studies be followed up with randomized controlled trials (Czajkowski et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Czajkowski et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Study therapists met weekly for peer supervision.

    “Study therapists met weekly for peer supervision.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results extend upon the prior study by demonstrating positive effects of CBT in a larger sample and highlighting that CBT may lead to significant symptom reduction even when delivered in a less time-intensive and more cost-effective weekly outpatient format.

    “However, our results extend upon the prior study by demonstrating positive effects of CBT in a larger sample and highlighting that CBT may lead to significant symptom reduction even when delivered in a less time-intensive and more cost-effective weekly outpatient format.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Cronbach alpha was .94 for the FNS in the current sample.

    “Cronbach alpha was .94 for the current sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both patients who experienced adverse events remained in treatment, suggesting they may have been willing to experience some discomfort for the possibility of reducing ARFID symptoms.

    “Of note, both patients who experienced adverse events remained in the treatment, suggesting that they may have been willing to experience some discomfort for the possibility of reducing ARFID symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Given that the majority of patients received the family-supported version of CBT-AR, the findings are consistent with recent case series and one pilot RCT of young children that reported positive effects of FBT for ARFID.

    “Given that the majority of patients in our study received the family-supported version of CBT-AR, our findings are also consistent with recent case series (Lock et al., 2019b; Rienecke et al., 2020) and one pilot RCT of young children (Lock et al., 2019a) that have reported positive effects of FBT for ARFID.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lock et al., 2019b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rienecke et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lock et al., 2019a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The primary outcome measure-the PARDI interview-was conducted by assessors who were not therapists in the current study.

    “Second, the primary outcome measure—the PARDI interview—was conducted by assessors who were not therapists in the current study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Therapists delivered CBT-AR according to a published manual and exhibited high levels of treatment fidelity as confirmed by an independent rater.

    “First, therapists delivered CBT-AR according to a published manual and exhibited high levels of treatment fidelity as confirmed by an independent rater.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because patients were recruited from a larger neurobiology study, they had to meet inclusion criteria (e.g., ability to complete MRI) that would not normally be applied in routine clinical care and were offered monetary compensation for completing assessments, which could limit generalizability of the findings.

    “Fourth, because we recruited our sample from a larger neurobiology study of ARFID, patients had to meet some inclusion criteria (e.g., ability to complete MRI) that would not normally be applied in routine clinical care and were offered monetary compensation for completing assessments, which could limit generalizability of the findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Pre-treatment PARDI scores were fairly low, which may limit generalizability to those with more severe presentations.

    “Third, pre-treatment PARDI scores were fairly low, which may limit generalizability to those with more severe presentations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Patients were not allowed to receive any other interventions-such as nutrition counseling, occupational therapy, speech therapy, or other forms of psychotherapy-during the trial.

    “Patients were not allowed to receive any other interventions—such as nutrition counseling, occupational therapy, speech therapy, or other forms of psychotherapy—during the trial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Patients and families rated CBT-AR as credible upon starting treatment and satisfactory upon completing it.

    “Patients and families rated CBT-AR as credible upon starting treatment and satisfactory upon completing it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The majority of patients offered CBT-AR elected to take it up, and few patients dropped out.

    “Specifically, the majority of patients offered the treatment elected to take it up, and few patients dropped out.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Cronbach alpha was .85 for the STAIC trait subscale in the current sample.

    “Cronbach alpha was .85 in the current sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Cronbach alpha was .72 for the CDI-2 in the current sample.

    “Cronbach alpha was .72 in the current sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Therapists, patients, and parents reported significant improvements on multiple measures of ARFID symptoms, ranging from incorporation of new foods to significant gains in weight.

    “Therapists, patients, and parents reported significant improvements on multiple measures of ARFID symptoms, ranging from the incorporation of new foods to significant gains in weight.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
46 of 46
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Improvements in ARFID symptoms, weight, and food variety observed from pre- to post-treatment are attributable to CBT-AR rather than to nonspecific factors, concurrent medical monitoring, or passage of time.

    “ORBIT defines a proof-of-concept study as an uncontrolled within-subjects study that evaluates whether a novel intervention could plausibly offer clinically significant benefit that could later be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of 20 patients who initiated treatment is representative of the broader population of children and adolescents with ARFID.

    “Of 25 eligible individuals, 20 initiated treatment, including 17 completers and three dropouts.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Therapists' post-treatment CGI ratings are unbiased by therapist allegiance or knowledge of treatment.

    “Therapists provided CGI ratings on their own patients at post-treatment and we interpreted a score of 1 or 2 (much or very much improved, respectively) as representing positive treatment response (Wilhelm et al., 2011).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The number of new foods incorporated recorded by therapists is an accurate measure of patients' food incorporation.

    “At post-treatment, therapists recorded the number of new foods that their patients had incorporated during the course of CBT-AR.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Non-completers did not change from pre- to post-treatment.

    “we conducted a series of paired t-tests to evaluate change in pre- versus post-outcome measures, assuming no change in non-completers.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Preliminary evidence has supported cognitive behavioural therapy for ARFID as an effective treatment for heterogeneous presentations of ARFID in children, adolescents, and adults.

    “In particular, preliminary evidence has supported cognitive behavioural therapy for ARFID as an effective treatment for heterogeneous presentations of ARFID in children, adolescents, and adults.[90][91][92]”
  • In a prior study of CBT-AR in children and adolescents (ages 10-17), 85% completed treatment.

    “In that study, the majority of patients (85%) completed treatment, and completers reported high levels of treatment satisfaction. Furthermore, patients demonstrated significant decreases in ARFID severity from pre- to post-treatment, added an average of 16.7 novel foods to their diet, and—at the conclusion of treatment—70% no longer met criteria for ARFID (Thomas et al., 2020).”
  • In a prior study of CBT-AR in children and adolescents, completers reported high levels of treatment satisfaction.

    “In that study, the majority of patients (85%) completed treatment, and completers reported high levels of treatment satisfaction. Furthermore, patients demonstrated significant decreases in ARFID severity from pre- to post-treatment, added an average of 16.7 novel foods to their diet, and—at the conclusion of treatment—70% no longer met criteria for ARFID (Thomas et al., 2020).”
  • In a prior study of CBT-AR in children and adolescents, patients added an average of 16.7 novel foods.

    “In that study, the majority of patients (85%) completed treatment, and completers reported high levels of treatment satisfaction. Furthermore, patients demonstrated significant decreases in ARFID severity from pre- to post-treatment, added an average of 16.7 novel foods to their diet, and—at the conclusion of treatment—70% no longer met criteria for ARFID (Thomas et al., 2020).”
  • The post-treatment remission rate of 47% was somewhat lower than the 70% reported for children and adolescents in a previous trial.

    “Although adults in this study made significant improvements with CBT-AR, the post-treatment remission rate of 47% was somewhat lower than the 70% we reported for our previous trial of CBT-AR in children and adolescents (Thomas et al., 2020).”

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • CGI improvement scores are labeled in reverse order

    Minor

    The CGI definition assigns "very much improved" to a score of 1, but the subsequent interpretation labels a score of 1 "much improved" and a score of 2 "very much improved," respectively.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Becker K. R. Mancuso C. Azanza E. Izquierdo A. Wons O. Dreier M. Slattery M. Plessow F. Micali N. Eddy K. T. Thomas J. J. Misra M. &Lawson E. A.(under review). Distinct ghrelin and PYY response in adolescent girls with low‐weight avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder compared to anorexia nervosa and healthy controls.
  2. Fairburn C. G., 2008, Cognitive behavior therapy and eating disorders, 309
  3. Kovacs M., 1992, Children's depression inventory: Manual, Q8
  4. Thomas J. J., 2019, Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Children, adolescents, and adults
  5. Williams K. E., 2007, Treating eating problems of children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities: Interventions for professionals and parents

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomas, J. J., Becker, K. R., Kuhnle, M. C., Jo, J. H., Harshman, S. G., Wons, O. B., Keshishian, A. C., Hauser, K., Breithaupt, L., Liebman, R. E., Misra, M., Wilhelm, S., Lawson, E. A., & Eddy, K. T.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Jennifer J.
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-09
Volume
53
Issue
10
Pages
1636-1646
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W3048392172
Cited by
146
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 15
FWCI
6.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH108595)
  • Global Foundation for Eating Disorders
  • American Psychological Foundation
  • Hilda and Preston Davis Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, children and adolescents, treatment feasibility, treatment acceptability, proof of concept, family-based treatment, weight gain, underweight, eating disorders, psychosocial interventions
MeSH terms
Proof of Concept Study, Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder, Adolescent, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Child, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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