Cited by 373Eating Disorders and BehaviorsClinical practice guidelines implementationPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines for eating disorders: international comparison

Open access
Hilbert, Anja, Hoek, Hans W., Schmidt, Ricarda·2017·Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current systematic review sought to compare available evidence-based clinical treatment guidelines for all specific eating disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Nine evidence-based clinical treatment guidelines for eating disorders were located through a systematic search. The international comparison demonstrated notable commonalities and differences among these current clinical guidelines. SUMMARY: Evidence-based clinical guidelines represent an important step toward the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatments into clinical practice. Despite advances in clinical research on eating disorders, a growing body of literature demonstrates that individuals with eating disorders often do not receive an evidence-based treatment for their disorder. Regarding the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatments, current guidelines do endorse the main empirically validated treatment approaches with considerable agreement, but additional recommendations are largely inconsistent. An increased evidence base is critical in offering clinically useful and reliable guidance for the treatment of eating disorders. Because developing and updating clinical guidelines is time-consuming and complex, an international coordination of guideline development, for example, across the European Union, would be desirable.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/yco.0000000000000360

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • In the 2017 review of 8 existing guidelines for AN, only 3 mentioned psychiatric comorbidities, while 5 of 9 guidelines for BN noted comorbidities, usually as "special issues".

    “In the excellent 2017 review of 8 existing guidelines for AN by Hilbert and colleagues, only 3 of these 8 manuscripts mentioned psychiatric comorbidities, while 5 of 9 guidelines for BN noted comorbidities, usually as “special issues” (34).”

    From The integrated treatment of eating disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity: a commentary on the evolution of principles and guidelines (2023) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results > Comparison section reports two guidelines with information on treating physical and mental comorbidities in AN, not three. It reports four guidelines with specific information on treating comorbidities in BN, not five. The paper also counts nine AN guidelines and eight BN guidelines—the reverse of the claim’s denominators. Its tables do place comorbidity information under “Special issues.” Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For adults with anorexia nervosa who have not responded to outpatient care, inpatient treatment in a behavioral specialty program is recommended.

    “For adults who have not responded to outpatient care, inpatient treatment in a behavioral specialty program is recommended [13]”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kass, 2013, Psychological treatments for eating disorders, Curr Opin Psychiatry, 26, 549, 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328365a30e · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hilbert, A., Hoek, H. W., & Schmidt, R.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
Corresponding author
Hilbert, Anja
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Published
2017-11
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
423-437
ISSN
0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2742943332
Cited by
373
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Qucosa (Saxon State and University Library Dresden) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EO1501)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
eating disorders, evidence-based treatment, dissemination of evidence-based treatment, guideline comparison, treatment guidelines
MeSH terms
Feeding and Eating Disorders, Humans, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Internationality

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