A systematic review and meta-analysis of a 10-session cognitive behavioural therapy for non-underweight eating disorders
Abstract
Objective Treatment guidelines recommend that people with non-underweight eating disorders should receive up to 20 sessions of eating-disorder-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT-ED). The present study reviewed ten studies of 10-session cognitive behavioural therapy for non-underweight patients (CBT-T).Method We conducted a systematic review using four electronic databases and contacted researchers in the field for unpublished data. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool within-group effect sizes.Results From pre-treatment to post-treatment, medium to very large effect sizes were observed for eating disorder psychopathology, clinical impairment, depression, anxiety, and weekly frequencies of objective bingeing and vomiting. Furthermore, the effect of CBT-T appears to last after treatment with eating disorder psychopathology remaining below the norm for non-clinical females at follow-up. The dropout rate from CBT-T was 39%, and 65% of completers achieved a good outcome.Conclusions While results should be interpreted as preliminary due to a number of limitations, the present study suggests that CBT-T is a promising treatment for people with non-underweight eating disorders, which can achieve a good outcome in half the time currently recommended in treatment guidelines. The present study, therefore, provides valuable justification for future randomised controlled trials directly comparing short and long forms of CBT-ED as well as examining who does best with which version.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
CBT-T has been tested in one randomized controlled trial to date and in several case series.
“It has been tested in one randomized controlled trial to date (Pellizzer et al., 2019), as well as several case series (Keegan et al., 2022).”
From Brief group cognitive‐behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa and binge‐eating disorder: A pilot study of feasibility and acceptability. (2023) · cites this paper as Keegan et al., 2022
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Keegan, E., Waller, G., & Wade, T. D.
- Affiliations
- Flinders University (AU)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Keegan, Ella
- Venue
- Clinical Psychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-06-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 241-254
- ISSN
- 1328-4207 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-9552
- OpenAlex
- W4282982485
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8
- FWCI
- 1.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- funding agencies
- 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
- cognitive behavioral therapy, eating disorders, short-term treatment, binge eating, vomiting, eating disorder psychopathology, depression, anxiety, treatment discontinuation, treatment outcomes
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