Herscovici 2017.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Country: Argentina
Diagnostic tool: Great Ormond Street operational definition of AN (Bryant‐Waugh 2000). The entire sample would have met current DSM V diagnostic criteria
No. screened: Total: 38
No. randomised: Total: 23
No. started trial: 23
No. dropped out during intervention: 2
No. dropped out during follow‐up: No detail
No. analysed (observed case): Total: 23; FT: 12; FTFM: 11 Mean age in years (SD): Total: 17.1 (2.3) Age range in years: Total: No detail Gender %: No detail Subtype purging %: Total: 35; FT: 25; FTFM 45 Subtype restricting %: No detail Age of onset: No detail Duration of illness: Total: 21.5 (14.3) months; FT: 21.1 (12.0) months; FTFM: 21.9 (11.9); Range: 8.5 ‐ 36 months Baseline weight: Most were severely underweight (21/23 had < 85% EBW), no further detail Baseline BMI: No detail Baseline eating disorder scale score: Total: 7.0 (3.0) EDI‐2 Global Score; FT: 5.2 (SD, 2.1) EDI‐2 GS; 9.1 (2.7) EDI‐2 GS Baseline eating disorder scale score: No detail Baseline purging: No detail Comorbidity: FT: 51.4 (6.5) GSI of SCL90‐R; 62.5 (11.1) GSI of SCL90‐R Details on living arrangements: All residing at home with 1 or both parents as per inclusion criteria. Total: Intact 13 (57%), Blended 1 ( 4%), Divorced 6 (26%), Single 3 (13%); FT: Intact 6 (50%), Blended 1 ( 8%), Divorced 5 (42%), Single 0 ( 0%); FTFM: Intact 7 (64%), Blended 0 ( 0%), Divorced 1 ( 9%), Single 3 (27%) Family education/employment/income: Total: Socioeconmic level: Lower 3 (13%), Middle 10 (44%), Upper Middle 3 (13%), Upper 7 (30%); FT: Lower 1 (8%), Middle 4 (33.%), Upper Middle 2 (17%), Upper 5 (42%); FTFM: Lower 2 (18%), Middle 6 (55%), Upper Middle 1 ( 9%), Upper 2 (18%) Recruitment strategy: Methods of recruitment of participants included: (i) agreements with eating disorder hospital services; (ii) informative presentations for parents at schools; and (iii) public service announcements in the media. 70 telephone inquiries were screened to determine eligibility. Following this, 38 adolescents and their families were scheduled for assessment at the Universidad del Salvador (supplementaries), although paper states they were from the clinician's private practice. Exclusion criteria:
|
|
| Interventions | Setting of care: Outpatient
Training/qualification of care provider(s): Family therapist
Treatment manual: No detail
Supervision of treatment: No detail
Adherence to treatment: No detail
Intervention group 1
Description: Family‐based therapy
Maudsley Approach. Length: Mean 14 sessions (range 10 ‐ 19) Intervention group 2 Description: Family‐based therapy + family meal As above, with family meal included Length: Mean 18 sessions (range 14 ‐ 25) but 1 participant received more, 90 minute sessions, 6 months |
|
| Outcomes |
Eating psychopathology EDI‐2 MRGAS Behavioural indices Weight recovery Amenorrhea General Psychopathology and Obsessionality SCL‐90 |
|
| Notes | Funded by: no details | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated random sequence |
| 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 | Low risk | Outcome assessors blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | < 10% missing data; but despite reports that data was missing, these participants appear to have been included in the analysis. Thus it is unclear if LOCF analysis was undertaken, but not stated |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All measures appear to be reported across paper and supplementary tables |
| Other bias | Unclear risk |
|