Cited by 270Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A randomized controlled comparison of integrative cognitive-affective therapy (ICAT) and enhanced cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-E) for bulimia nervosa

Open access
Wonderlich, S. A., Peterson, C. B., Crosby, R. D., Smith, T. L., Klein, M. H., Mitchell, J. E., Crow, S. J.·2014·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to compare a new psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa (BN), integrative cognitive-affective therapy (ICAT), with an established treatment, 'enhanced' cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT-E). METHOD: Eighty adults with symptoms of BN were randomized to ICAT or CBT-E for 21 sessions over 19 weeks. Bulimic symptoms, measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE), were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment (EOT) and at the 4-month follow-up. Treatment outcome, measured by binge eating frequency, purging frequency, global eating disorder severity, emotion regulation, self-oriented cognition, depression, anxiety and self-esteem, was determined using generalized estimating equations (GEEs), logistic regression and a general linear model (intent-to-treat). RESULTS: Both treatments were associated with significant improvement in bulimic symptoms and in all measures of outcome, and no statistically significant differences were observed between the two conditions at EOT or follow-up. Intent-to-treat abstinence rates for ICAT (37.5% at EOT, 32.5% at follow-up) and CBT-E (22.5% at both EOT and follow-up) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: ICAT was associated with significant improvements in bulimic and associated symptoms that did not differ from those obtained with CBT-E. This initial randomized controlled trial of a new individual psychotherapy for BN suggests that targeting emotion and self-oriented cognition in the context of nutritional rehabilitation may be efficacious and worthy of further study.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291713001098

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wonderlich, S. A., Peterson, C. B., Crosby, R. D., Smith, T. L., Klein, M. H., Mitchell, J. E., & Crow, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Dakota (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Wonderlich, S. A.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2013-05-23
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
543-553
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2144634405
Cited by
270
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5
FWCI
22.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K02MH065919, R01MH059674, R34MH077571, T32MH082761)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30 DK60456, R01DK061973, R01DK061912)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
bulimia nervosa, psychotherapy comparison, binge eating, purging, emotion regulation, nutritional rehabilitation, eating disorder severity, treatment outcomes
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Bulimia, Depression, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interview, Psychological, Male, Models, Psychological, Patient Education as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Severity of Illness Index, Models, Statistical, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Bulimia Nervosa, Evidence-Based Practice, Intention to Treat Analysis, Motivational Interviewing

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