Table 2.
Direct comparisons between treatments.
| Comparison | SMD | seSMD | Study | Treatment 1 | Treatment 2 | N1 | M1 | SD1 | N2 | M2 | SD2 | Metric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) ADOLESCENT PATIENTS | ||||||||||||
| 1 | −1.327 | 0.177 | Agras2014 | FST | FT_AN | 78 | 92.3 | 9.3 | 78 | 94.6 | 9.3 | %iBW |
| 2 | 0.221 | 0.153 | Eisler2016 | MFT | FT_AN | 86 | 90.7 | 6.3 | 86 | 89.3 | 6.3 | %mBMI |
| 3 | −0.713 | 0.328 | Eisler2000 | FT_ANsep | FT_AN | 19 | 45.7 | 6.6 | 21 | 50.5 | 6.6 | kg |
| 4 | 0.167 | 0.196 | Gowers2007 | Complex-op | Complex-ip | 52 | 17.9 | 2.37 | 52 | 17.5 | 2.37 | BMI |
| 5 | −0.167 | 0.198 | Gowers2007 | Complex-op | FT_AN&X | 52 | 17.9 | 2.37 | 50 | 18.3 | 2.37 | BMI |
| 6 | 0.335 | 0.200 | Gowers2007 | FT_AN&X | Complex-ip | 50 | 18.3 | 2.37 | 52 | 17.5 | 2.37 | BMI |
| 7 | −0.167 | 0.158 | HerpertzDa2014 | Complex-ip | Complex-dh | 75 | 17.8 | 1.5 | 86 | 18.1 | 2 | BMI |
| 8 | −0.206 | 0.194 | LeGrange2016 | FT_AN | FT_AN&X | 55 | 92.8 | 9.8 | 52 | 95 | 11.4 | %mBMI |
| 9 | 0.000 | 0.216 | Lock2005 | FT_AN&X | FT_AN | 42 | 19.5 | 2.1 | 44 | 19.5 | 2.2 | BMI |
| 10 | −0.092 | 0.208 | Lock2010 | PD&X | FT_AN | 49 | 93.1 | 13.7 | 44 | 94.2 | 9.5 | %eBW |
| 11 | 0.294 | 0.208 | Madden2015 | Complex-ipS | Complex-ip | 56 | 95.5 | 6.7 | 40 | 93.6 | 6 | %aBW |
| 12 | 0.841 | 0.449 | Robin1994 | FT_AN | PD&X | 11 | 20.1 | 1.1 | 11 | 19 | 1.4 | BMI |
| (B) ADULT PATIENTS | ||||||||||||
| 1–6* | 0.000* | 0.305 | Dare2001 | FPT, FT_AN,CAT* | 21-23 | 16.5 | 2.4 | 19-22 | 16.5 | 2.4 | BMI | |
| 7 | −0.737 | 0.306 | Lock2013 | CBT&X | CBT | 23 | 17.6 | 1.2 | 23 | 18.5 | 1.2 | BMI |
| 8 | 0.000 | 0.317 | McIntosh2005 | CBT | IPT | 19 | 18.1 | 2.47 | 21 | 18.1 | 2.47 | BMI |
| 9 | −0.277 | 0.341 | McIntosh2005 | CBT | SSCM | 19 | 18.1 | 2.47 | 16 | 18.8 | 2.47 | BMI |
| 10 | −0.277 | 0.334 | McIntosh2005 | IPT | SSCM | 21 | 18.1 | 2.47 | 16 | 18.8 | 2.47 | BMI |
| 11 | 0.493 | 0.270 | Schmidt2012 | MANTRA | SSCM | 30 | 17.8 | 0.4 | 27 | 17.6 | 0.4 | BMI |
| 12 | −0.745 | 0.197 | Schmidt2015 | MANTRA | SSCM | 60 | 18.4 | 0.4 | 51 | 18.7 | 0.4 | BMI |
| 13 | −0.127 | 0.252 | Touyz2013 | CBT | SSCM | 31 | 16.6 | 1.4 | 32 | 16.8 | 1.7 | BMI |
| 14 | −0.408 | 0.370 | Treasure1995 | CBT | CAT | 16 | 17.4 | 3 | 14 | 18.5 | 2.1 | BMI |
| 15 | 0.100 | 0.157 | Zipfel2014 | CBTE | TAU | 80 | 17.7 | 1 | 83 | 17.6 | 1 | BMI |
| 16 | −0.100 | 0.158 | Zipfel2014 | FPT | CBTE | 80 | 17.6 | 1 | 80 | 17.7 | 1 | BMI |
| 17 | 0.000 | 0.157 | Zipfel2014 | FPT | TAU | 80 | 17.6 | 1 | 83 | 17.6 | 1 | BMI |
For abbreviations of types of treatment see Table 1;
*
Dare2011 reported the grand mean only as the groups did not differ significantly. Therefore we report only one SMC for all six comparisons of the study; SMD, Standarized Mean Difference; seSMD, standard error; study, ID of main publication; N1, N2, respective sample sizes; descriptive statistics of weight variable: M1, mean tx1; M2, mean tx2; SD1, standard deviation tx1; SD2, standard deviation tx2; Metric: %aBW, Percent average Body Weight; %eBW, Percent expected body weight; %iBW, % ideal body weight; %mBMI, % mean BMI; Complex-ipS, Complex-ip “short.”