Cited by 53Eating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Specificity of psychological treatments for bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder? A meta-analysis of direct comparisons

Spielmans, Glen I., Benish, Steven G., Marin, Catherine, Bowman, Wesley M., Menster, Maria, Wheeler, Anthony J.·2013·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Treatment guidelines state that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapy are the best-supported psychotherapies for bulimia nervosa (BN) and that CBT is the preferred psychological treatment for binge eating disorder (BED). However, no meta-analysis which both examined direct comparisons between psychological treatments for BN and BED and considered the role of moderating variables, such as the degree to which psychotherapy was bona fide, has previously been conducted Thus, such an analysis was undertaken. We included 77 comparisons reported in 53 studies. The results indicated that: (a) bona fide therapies outperformed non-bona fide treatments, (b) bona fide CBT outperformed bona fide non-CBT interventions by a statistically significant margin (only approaching statistical significance for BN and BED when examined individually), but many of these trials had confounds which limited their internal validity, (c) full CBT treatments offered no benefit over their components, and (d) the distribution of effect size differences between bona fide CBT treatments was homogeneously distributed around zero. These findings provide little support for treatment specificity in psychotherapy for BN and BED.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.008

Cites

120 of 120 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
Spielmans, G. I., Benish, S. G., Marin, C., Bowman, W. M., Menster, M., & Wheeler, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Metropolitan State University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Platteville (US)
Corresponding author
Spielmans, Glen I.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
460-469
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964837140
Cited by
53
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, treatment specificity, treatment comparison, treatment components, internal validity, eating disorders
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychotherapy, Bulimia Nervosa, Binge-Eating Disorder

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