Cited by 199Eating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

A randomized controlled comparison of guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy and behavioral weight loss for binge eating disorder

Grilo, Carlos M., Masheb, Robin M.·2005·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

We performed a randomized controlled study to test the relative efficacy of guided self-help (gsh) cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBTgsh) and behavioral weight loss treatment (BWLgsh) treatments for binge eating disorder (BED). To provide an additional partial control for non-specific influences of attention, a third control (CON) treatment condition was included. We tested the treatments using a guided self-help approach given the promising results from initial studies using minimal therapist guidance. Ninety consecutive overweight patients (19 males, 71 females) with BED were randomly assigned (5:5:2 ratio) to one of three treatments: CBTgsh (N=37), BWLgsh (N=38), or CON (N=15). The three 12-week treatment conditions were administered individually following guided self-help protocols. Overall, 70 (78%) completed treatments; CBTgsh (87%) and CON (87%) had significantly higher completion rates than BWLgsh (67%). Intent-to-treat analyses revealed that CBTgsh had significantly higher remission rates (46%) than either BWLgsh (18%) or CON (13%). Weight loss was minimal and differed little across treatments. The findings suggest that CBT, administered via guided self-help, demonstrates efficacy for BED, but not for obesity. The findings support CBT administered via guided self-help as a first step in the treatment of BED and provide evidence for its specific effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2004.11.010

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grilo, C. M., & Masheb, R. M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Grilo, Carlos M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-11
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
1509-1525
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070229588
Cited by
199
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
binge eating disorder, guided self-help, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral weight loss, obesity, treatment completion, remission, weight loss, non-specific treatment effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Behavior Therapy, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hyperphagia, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Group, Self-Help Groups, Weight Loss, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Case-Control Studies

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