Skip to main content
. 2015 Jul;70:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2015.04.010

Table 3.

Intention-to-treat analysis at post-treatment and at 60-week post-treatment follow-up.

Effect estimates for CBT-E vs IPT post-treatment Effect estimate for CBT-E vs IPT 60-week follow-up
Difference (95% CI) p value Difference (95% CI) p value
Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.14 (−0.42–0.71) 0.621 −0.59 (−1.50–0.32) 0.204
Eating disorder psychopathology (EDE)
 Global score −0.81 (−1.23–−0.40) <0.001 −0.28 (−0.74–0.18) 0.230
 Dietary restraint −1.39 (−1.89–−0.89) <0.001 −0.42 (−0.98–0.14) 0.142
 Eating concern −0.69 (−1.14–−0.23) 0.003 −0.23 (−0.68–0.21) 0.304
 Shape concern −0.54 (−0.99–−0.08) 0.021 −0.29 (−0.85–0.26) 0.303
 Weight concern −0.66 (−1.21–−0.11) 0.019 −0.28 (−0.82–0.26) 0.308
Other features
 Secondary Impairment (CIA) −6.22 (−10.10–−2.33) 0.002 −1.33 (−5.72–3.05) 0.551
 Depressive features (BDI) −1.76 (−5.86–2.34) 0.399 1.12 (−3.40–5.63) 0.628
Odds ratio (95% CI) p value Odds ratio (95% CI) p value
EDE severity score < 1 SD above the community mean (<1.74) 8.75 (2.59–29.54) <0.001 4.20 (1.17–15.14) 0.028
Eating disorder behaviour (EDE)
 Objective bulimic episodes ≥1 0.24 (0.08–0.75) 0.014 0.80 (0.24–2.66) 0.714
 Self-induced vomiting ≥1 0.22 (0.04–1.09) 0.064 0.84 (0.15–4.79) 0.843
 Laxative-taking ≥1 0.03 (0.00–0.54) 0.018 0.11 (0.00–2.82) 0.183
 Absence of all of the above 6.68 (1.89–23.59) 0.003 1.04 (0.29–3.67) 0.954

EDE – Eating Disorder Examination (Fairburn et al., 2008); CIA – Clinical Impairment Assessment (Bohn & Fairburn, 2008; Bohn et al., 2008); BDI – Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al., 1961).

Estimated treatment differences are from longitudinal mixed effects linear or logistic regression models which included data from all participants who were randomised (IPT: 65; CBT: 65), account for missing data and repeated measures on individuals over time and adjust for baseline values of the outcome in question.