Summary of findings for the main comparison. Family therapy compared to standard care/treatment as usual for anorexia nervosa.

Family therapy compared to standard care/treatment as usual for anorexia nervosa
Participants: People of any age or gender with a primary clinical diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (AN) Intervention: Family therapy Comparator: Standard care/treatment as usual
Outcomes	№ of participants (studies) Follow up	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Relative effect (95% CI)	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)
				Risk with standard care/treatment as usual	Risk difference with family therapy
Remission post‐intervention	81 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWa,b	RR 3.83 (1.60 to 9.13)	Study population
				128 per 1000	363 more per 1000 (77 more to 1042 more)
Remission at long‐term follow‐up	41 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWc,d	RR 6.09 (0.33 to 110.84)	Study population
				0 per 1000	0 fewer per 1000 (0 fewer to 0 fewer)
Mortality at long‐term follow‐up	0 (0 studies)	‐	not pooled	Study population
				not pooled	not pooled
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

^aEvidence downgraded by one level for unclear risk of selection bias due to inadequate reporting of random sequence generation and allocation concealment in one study. Evidence also downgraded for high or unclear risk of performance and detection bias across studies. Evidence also downgraded for high risk of reporting bias due to selective reporting across both studies (some data not reported), including uneven treatment doses, participants crossing over groups and reporting anomalies.
 ^bEvidence downgraded by one level for imprecision, as there are only two trials with a total of 81 participants and wide confidence intervals.
 ^cEvidence downgraded by one level for high risk of performance bias and detection bias. Some discrepancy in numbers reported in dropouts.
 ^dEvidence downgraded by one level for imprecision as there was only one trial with 41 participants.