Table 4.
Summary of findings and confidence in effect estimates for the relapse prevention studies.
| Outcome | k | N | Effect size (95% CI) | Heterogeneity (% I2) | Confidence in effect estimates (GRADE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBT-based e-intervention for relapse prevention in anorexia nervosa versus treatment-as-usual | |||||
| Inappropriate weight control behaviour (vomiting, laxative misuse and restrictive eating) | |||||
| End of intervention | 1 | 239 | SMD −0.19 (−0.44 to 0.07) | NA | Moderateb |
| Follow-up | 1 | 208 | SMD −0.30 (−0.58 to −0.03)* | NA | Moderateb |
| Global eating disorder psychopathology (clinician-rated) | |||||
| End of intervention | 1 | 239 | SMD −0.21 (−0.47 to 0.04) | NA | Moderateb |
| Bulimia (clinician-rated) | |||||
| End of intervention | 1 | 239 | SMD −0.26 (−0.51 to 0.00)* | NA | Moderateb |
| Follow-up | 1 | 208 | SMD −0.21 (−0.48 to 0.07) | NA | Moderateb |
| Global eating disorder psychopathology (self-rated) | |||||
| End of intervention | 1 | 219 | SMD −0.27 (−0.53 to 0.00)* | NA | Lowa, b |
| Follow-up | 1 | 190 | SMD −0.23 (−0.52 to 0.06) | NA | Lowa, b |
| Bulimia (self-rated) | |||||
| End of intervention | 1 | 219 | SMD −0.15 (−0.42 to 0.11) | NA | Lowa, b |
| Follow-up | 1 | 190 | SMD −0.27 (−0.56 to 0.02) | NA | Lowa, b |
| Drive for thinness | |||||
| End of intervention | 1 | 219 | SMD −0.17 (−0.44 to 0.09) | NA | Lowa, b |
| Follow-up | 1 | 190 | SMD −0.18 (−0.46 to 0.11) | NA | Lowa, b |
Note.
k = number of studies; N = number of participants; NA = not applicable; SMD = standardised mean difference; RR = risk ratio; CI = confidence interval.
*p < 0.05.
Reasons for downgrading, based on the GRADE approach:
a
Risk of bias (one or more of the following: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, selective outcome reporting bias).
b
Imprecision (optimal information size for dichotomous outcomes = 300 events, and for continuous outcomes = 400 participants).