Eisler 2000.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Country: UK Diagnostic tool: DSM‐IV or ICD 10 No. screened: 57 No. randomised: 40: Conjoint FT:19; Separated FT:21 No. started trial: No details No. dropped out during intervention: 4 (not given by group) No. dropped out during follow‐up: No follow‐up data collected, just end of treatment No. analysed: 40 (LOCF): Conjoint FT: 19; Separated FT: 21 Mean age in years (SD): Total: 15.5 (1.6); Conjoint FT: 15.5; Separated FT: 15.5 Age range in years: Total: 11.5 ‐ 17.8 (not given by group) Gender: 1 male : 39 female (not given by group) Subtype: No details Age of onset in years: Total: 14.5 (1.6) (range 10.6 ‐ 17.0); Conjoint FT: 14.4; Separated FT: 14.5 Duration of illness in months: Total: 12.9 (9.4) months (range 2 ‐ 36 months); Conjoint FT: 13.9; Separated FT: 12.0 Baseline weight in kgs: Total: 40.0 (6.4) kgs (range 28 ‐ 53 kg); Conjoint FT: 39.3 kg; Separated FT: 40.7 kg Baseline ABW: Total: 74.3 (9.8) % (range 50.0% ‐ 95%); Conjoint FT: 72.2%; Separated FT: 76.2% Baseline BMI: No details Baseline eating disorder scale score: EDI: 56.2 (33.9) (not given by group); EAT: 47.7 (25.7) (not given by group) Baseline purging (bulimic symptoms > weekly): Total: 25: Conjoint FT: 31.6; Separated FT: 19.0 Comorbidity: No details Details on living arrangements: Total: nuclear 70%; adoptive 5%; single 10%; reconstituted 15%: Conjoint FT: nuclear 63.3%; adoptive 5.3%; single 10.5%; reconstituted 21.1%: Separated FT: nuclear 76.2%; adoptive 4.8%; single 9.5%; reconstituted 9.5% Family education/employment/income: Total: I ‐ II 65%; III ‐ V 22.5%; VI ‐ VIII 12.5 %: Conjoint FT: I ‐ II 63.2%; III ‐ V 15.8%; VI ‐ VIII 21.0 %; Separated FT: I ‐ II 66.7%; III ‐ V 28.6%; VI ‐ VIII 5.8% Recruitment strategy: Consecutive referrals of adolescents to the eating disorders service at the Maudsely hospital Exclusion criteria: No details
Interventions	Setting of care: Outpatient Training/qualification of care provider(s): No details Treatment manual: No Supervision of treatment: Yes Adherence to treatment: No Intervention group 1 Description: Conjoint family therapy Family‐based therapy with the whole family required to attend every session Length: 1 year Intervention group 2 Description: Separated family therapy Family‐based therapy but the parents are seen separately from the young person with AN. Therapy with the young person consists of supportive educational therapy Length: 1 year
Outcomes	Eating psychopathology Morgan Russell Assessment Schedule (Morgan 1988) EDI (Garner 1983) EAT (Garner 1979) Behavioural indices Kilograms/% of AWB/BMI Good outcome/Intermediate outcome/poor outcome Analogous rating to score for the presence of bingeing, vomiting, laxative abuse, depression, obsessional symptoms, and psychosomatic tension General psychopathology Mood ‐ Short Mood and Feeling Questionnaire (Angold 1995) Obsessionality (Hodgson 1977) Global pathology and interpersonal functioning Self‐Esteem RSE Scale (RSE) (Rosenberg 1965) Family Functioning SCFI (Kinston 1984) Expressed emotions (ratings from video (Leff 1985)) FACES III (Olson 1979; Olson 1985)
Notes	Included in conjoint family therapy vs separated family therapy comparison Family therapy in both cases categorised as family‐based therapy Funded by: Medical research Council, Greek Ministry of Health
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “randomly assigned”, “using a stratified design controlling for levels of critical comments using the Expressed Emotion index” ‐ stated in abstract Quote: “randomised controlled trial” pg. 728, no other statement Personal communication stated that stratified randomisation was undertaken, taking into account parental criticism with the random‐number sequence generated by computer
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Personal communication stated that sealed envelopes were opened after consent to the study was obtained
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	Quote: “assessments conducted by a research psychiatrist who was independent of the treatment team and interviewed patients and their family and administered self report questionnaires”. Unclear if 'independent' means blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	They describe how many dropped out, but not clear from which groups or reasons for dropout, and give information on how many sessions the rest of the cohort completed. Stated they undertook an ITT analysis (pg. 730) and that assessments were carried out on all participants regardless of whether they completed the course of therapy Personal communication stated that while all participants were followed up regardless of how much treatment they received (including all dropouts), data analysis was based only on those participants for whom data were available. Author also stated that using last observation carried forward data may have inflated treatment result, as it does not take into account data for participants who relapsed No Intention‐to‐treat analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Authors report that they collected data for family functioning (FACES). However, they do not provide the data and simply state there was no significant differences. No report of 3‐ or 6‐month outcomes No separated group scores for EAT and MR at baseline (EDI reported in Dare), just change scores
Other bias	High risk	ABW, Purging and Family Structure show mild imbalances at baseline, significance levels not reported No separated group scores for EAT and MR at baseline (EDI reported in Dare), just change scores Same therapist conducted both types of therapy