成人饮食失调患者认知行为治疗的交付形式:网络荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Pim Cuijpers, Mathias Harrer, Clara Miguel, Tara Donker, Aaron Keshen, Eirini Karyotaki, Jake Linardon
{"title":"成人饮食失调患者认知行为治疗的交付形式:网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Pim Cuijpers, Mathias Harrer, Clara Miguel, Tara Donker, Aaron Keshen, Eirini Karyotaki, Jake Linardon","doi":"10.1080/16506073.2025.2495950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although CBT has been found to be effective in the treatment of eating disorders, it is not clear if there are differences between treatment formats. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized trials of broadly defined CBT comparing individual, group, guided self-help (GSH) and unguided self-help (USH) with each other or with a control condition. The NMA used a frequentist graph-theoretical approach and included 36 trials (53 comparisons; 3,136 participants). Only one trial was aimed at anorexia nervosa. All formats resulted in large, significant effects when compared to waitlists, with no significant difference between formats (group: g = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.84; 1.31; GSH: g = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.75; 1.13; individual: g = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.77; 1.36; USH: g = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.30; 0.93). No significant difference was found between any format and care-as-usual. Analyses limited to binge eating disorder supported the effects of individual, group and GSH formats, with no significant differences between them. Few trials with low risk of bias were available. CBT for eating disorders can probably be delivered effectively in any format, without significant differences between the formats. These results should be considered with caution because of the non-significant differences when compared to care-as-usual and the considerable risk of bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":10535,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delivery formats of cognitive behavior therapy in adults with eating disorders: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Pim Cuijpers, Mathias Harrer, Clara Miguel, Tara Donker, Aaron Keshen, Eirini Karyotaki, Jake Linardon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16506073.2025.2495950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although CBT has been found to be effective in the treatment of eating disorders, it is not clear if there are differences between treatment formats. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized trials of broadly defined CBT comparing individual, group, guided self-help (GSH) and unguided self-help (USH) with each other or with a control condition. The NMA used a frequentist graph-theoretical approach and included 36 trials (53 comparisons; 3,136 participants). Only one trial was aimed at anorexia nervosa. All formats resulted in large, significant effects when compared to waitlists, with no significant difference between formats (group: g = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.84; 1.31; GSH: g = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.75; 1.13; individual: g = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.77; 1.36; USH: g = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.30; 0.93). No significant difference was found between any format and care-as-usual. Analyses limited to binge eating disorder supported the effects of individual, group and GSH formats, with no significant differences between them. Few trials with low risk of bias were available. CBT for eating disorders can probably be delivered effectively in any format, without significant differences between the formats. These results should be considered with caution because of the non-significant differences when compared to care-as-usual and the considerable risk of bias.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2025.2495950\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2025.2495950","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管人们发现CBT在治疗饮食失调方面是有效的,但目前尚不清楚治疗形式之间是否存在差异。我们对广义CBT的随机试验进行了网络荟萃分析(NMA),将个体、群体、引导自助(GSH)和非引导自助(USH)相互之间或与对照条件进行比较。NMA使用了频率图理论方法,包括36个试验(53个比较;3136名参与者)。只有一项试验针对神经性厌食症。与候补名单相比,所有格式都产生了巨大而显著的影响,格式之间没有显著差异(组:g = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.84;1.31;GSH: g = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.75;1.13;个体:g = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.77;1.36;USH: g = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.30;0.93)。在任何形式和照旧之间没有发现显著差异。仅限于暴食症的分析支持个体、群体和谷胱甘肽形式的影响,它们之间没有显著差异。很少有低偏倚风险的试验可用。饮食失调的CBT可能可以以任何形式有效地进行,而形式之间没有显著差异。这些结果应该谨慎考虑,因为与常规护理相比,这些结果没有显著差异,而且存在相当大的偏倚风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delivery formats of cognitive behavior therapy in adults with eating disorders: a network meta-analysis.

Although CBT has been found to be effective in the treatment of eating disorders, it is not clear if there are differences between treatment formats. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized trials of broadly defined CBT comparing individual, group, guided self-help (GSH) and unguided self-help (USH) with each other or with a control condition. The NMA used a frequentist graph-theoretical approach and included 36 trials (53 comparisons; 3,136 participants). Only one trial was aimed at anorexia nervosa. All formats resulted in large, significant effects when compared to waitlists, with no significant difference between formats (group: g = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.84; 1.31; GSH: g = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.75; 1.13; individual: g = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.77; 1.36; USH: g = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.30; 0.93). No significant difference was found between any format and care-as-usual. Analyses limited to binge eating disorder supported the effects of individual, group and GSH formats, with no significant differences between them. Few trials with low risk of bias were available. CBT for eating disorders can probably be delivered effectively in any format, without significant differences between the formats. These results should be considered with caution because of the non-significant differences when compared to care-as-usual and the considerable risk of bias.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the application of behavioural and cognitive sciences to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The journal publishes state-of-the-art scientific articles within: - clinical and health psychology - psychopathology - behavioural medicine - assessment - treatment - theoretical issues pertinent to behavioural, cognitive and combined cognitive behavioural therapies With the number of high quality contributions increasing, the journal has been able to maintain a rapid publication schedule, providing readers with the latest research in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信