Cited by 36Eating Disorders and BehaviorsDigital Mental Health InterventionsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

The efficacy of eHealth interventions for the treatment of adults diagnosed with full or subthreshold binge eating disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Moghimi, Elnaz, Davis, Caroline, Rotondi, Michael·2021·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent rise in the use of eHealth treatments for a variety of psychological disorders, including eating disorders. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is the first to evaluate the efficacy of eHealth interventions specifically for the treatment of binge eating disorder (characterized by compulsive overconsumption of food, in a relatively short period, and without compensatory behaviors such as purging or fasting). METHODS: A search on the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL was conducted for randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of eHealth treatment interventions with waitlist controls. RESULTS: From the databases searched, 3 studies (298 participants in total) met the inclusion criteria. All interventions were forms of internet-based guided cognitive behavioral therapy. The results of the analysis demonstrated that when compared with waitlist controls, individuals enrolled in eHealth interventions experienced a reduction in objective binge episodes (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.77, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.16) and eating disorder psychopathology (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.22), which included shape (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.22) and weight concerns (SMD -0.91, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.48). There was no significant difference in BMI between the eHealth interventions and controls (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide promising results for the use of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for binge eating disorder treatment and support the need for future research to explore the efficacy of these eHealth interventions.

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 · 10.2196/17874

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • The authors of that meta-analysis concluded that BED eTherapies had insufficient evidence to support their efficacy compared with face-to-face CBT.

    “Although these initial results appeared promising, the authors concluded that BED eTherapies had an insufficient quantity of evidence to support their efficacy compared with face-to-face CBT (31).”
  • The reduction in EDE-Q global score from pre- to post-treatment represented a large effect (g = 1.62) which compared well to the moderate pooled reductions (d = −0.77) observed in a BED targeted eTherapy meta-analysis.

    “Similarly, there was a statistically and clinically significant reduction from pre-to post-treatment in the EDE-Q global score, representing a large effect (g = 1.62) which compared well to the moderate pooled reductions (d = −0.77) observed in a BED targeted eTherapy meta-analysis (31).”
  • The large reduction in OBE frequency from pre- to post-treatment (g = 1.03) exceeded the average moderate pooled effect (d = −0.77) observed in a meta-analysis of BED eTherapy programs.

    “This large effect exceeded the average moderate pooled effect (d = −0.77) observed in a meta-analysis of BED eTherapy programs (31).”
  • Abstinence from binge-eating at post-treatment (16%) and follow up (21%) was comparable to the range of abstinence rates (14.6-25.1%) in existing studies evaluating BED eTherapies.

    “whilst abstinence from binge-eating at post-treatment (16%) and follow up (21%) was comparable to the range of abstinence rates (14.6–25.1%) in existing studies evaluating BED eTherapies (31).”

    From The acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a supported online self-help treatment program for binge-eating disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results report reductions in binge episodes from BED eHealth interventions, but give no abstinence-rate range. The Discussion’s Principal Findings say none of the included treatment studies resulted in complete abstinence following treatment; they do not report the cited 14.6–25.1% range. Searches for both endpoints and abstinence rates found no passage establishing that range. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition 2013 Washington American Psychiatric Association
  2. [37]American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition 1994 Washington American Psychiatric Association

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moghimi, E., Davis, C., & Rotondi, M.
Affiliations
York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Moghimi, Elnaz
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-07-20
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
e17874
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3161884157
Cited by
36
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
binge eating disorder, digital health interventions, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, guided self-help, eating disorder psychopathology, body image concern, weight concern, body mass index, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Telemedicine, 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