Ball 2004.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Country: Australia Diagnostic tool: DSM‐IV modified to also include participants with < 90% ABW No. screened: No detail No. randomised: Total: 25; BFT: 12; CBT: 13 No. started trial: No detail No. dropped out during intervention: Total: 7; BFT: 3; CBT: 4 No. dropped out during follow‐up: No detail No. analysed (observed case): BFT: 9; CBT: 9 Mean age in years (SD): BFT: 17.58 (3.37); CBT: 18.45 (2.57) Age range in years: Total: 13 ‐ 23 (totals only provided) Gender %: 100% female Subtype purging %: Total: 36% (N 9); BFT: 25% (N 3); CBT: 46.2% (N 6) Subtype restricting %: Total: 64% (N 16); BFT: 75% (N 9); CBT: 53.8 % (N 7) Age of onset: No detail Duration of illness: No detail Baseline weight: No detail Baseline BMI: BFT: 16.45 (0.85); CBT: 16.06 (1.58) Baseline eating disorder scale score (EDE): BFT: 2.00 (0.2); CBT: 2.05 (0.26) Baseline eating disorder scale score (MRS): BFT: 6.09 (1.51); CBT: 5.94 (1.07) Baseline purging: No detail Comorbidity: No detail Details on living arrangements: Total: All “currently living with their family” (pg. 305) Family education/employment/income: No detail Recruitment strategy: Patients evaluated at eating disorder unit Exclusion criteria: BMI < 13.5 Currently receiving other psychological or pharmacological treatment Current physical or psychological disorder ‐ other than depression or anxiety associated with AN Current drug or alcohol abuse Self‐harming behaviour in last 12 months Other indications for hospitalisation ‐ severe physical complications or suicidal ideation Recent history of untreated physical of psychological trauma or sexual abuse
Interventions	Setting of care: Outpatient Training/qualification of care provider(s): Yes: 6 female clinical psychologists with post‐graduate qualifications in CBT and eating disorders ‐ therapist crossed across treatments Treatment manual: No: No for CBT; unclear for BFT  “based on a number of behavioural interventions described by Robin 1989. Supervision of treatment: No detail Adherence to treatment: No detail Intervention group 1 Description: Behavioural family therapy Behavioural family therapy (Robin 1989), plus 4 nutritional counselling sessions Length: 25 sessions of 1 hour duration over 12 months Intervention group 2 Description: Individual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Based on Garner 1982, therapy to address maladaptive core beliefs often associated with feelings of failure and inadequacy. Plus 4 nutritional counselling sessions Length: 25 sessions of 1 hour duration over 12 months
Outcomes	Eating psychopathology EDE (Cooper 1987a; Cooper 1987b) Scales of Body Dissatisfaction, EDI (Garner 1983) Anorectic Behaviour Observation Scale (Vandereycken 1992) Behavioural indices Weight, BMI Menstruation Good outcome/intermediate outcome/poor outcome General psychopathology Depression (Beck 1961) STAI (Speilberger 1970) Obsessionality Perfectionism Scale from the EDE (Cooper 1987a; Cooper 1987b) Global pathology and interpersonal functioning State Self Esteem Scale (Heatherton 1991) Family functioning Eating Conflict Scale of the IBC (Robin 1989) (Prinz 1978)
Notes	Included in family therapy vs individual psychological intervention Family therapy categorised as family‐based therapy Funded by: Prince Henry Hospital Coast Centenary Grant
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No detail
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No detail
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Therapists and participants cannot be blinded in trials of family‐based therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No detail
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	There is not a full description of why people left the intervention in each group There are 3 hospitalisations but it is unclear from which groups No ITT analysis For the main outcome they do compare ITT to completer analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Do not report outcomes from the Eating Conflict subscale of the IBC Authors report that they collected data on both general and family functioning, but the data are not reported in a format that is useable for analysis
Other bias	High risk	Small sample size Baseline imbalance ‐ for subtype of AN Inaccurate, with conflict in reporting (state 60% in "good" category but then report N = 7 in each group for "good", which is less than 60%)