Rhodes 2008.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Country: United Kingdom Diagnostic tool: DSM‐IV TR diagnosis of AN No. screened: No detail No. randomised: Total: 20 No. started trial: No. dropped out during intervention: Total: "13.3% of data was missing due to dropout from treatment" No. dropped out during follow‐up: No detail No. analysed (observed case): No detail Mean age in years (SD): Total: 14; FBT: 14.3; FBT + PPC 13.7 Age range in years: Total: 12.2 ‐ 16.1; FBT: 13.1 ‐ 16.1; FBT + PPC: 12.2 ‐ 15.9 Gender %: Female 100% Subtype purging %: No detail Subtype restricting %: No detail Age of onset: Duration of illness: Total: < 6 months = 9; 6 ‐ 12 months = 10; > 12 months = 1; FBT: < 6 months = 5; 6 ‐ 12 months = 4; > 12 months = 1; FBT + PPC: < 6 months = 4; 6 ‐ 12 months = 6; > 12 months = 0 Baseline weight: Total: %IBW 81.21; FBT: %IBW 83.85; FBT + PPC: %IBW 81.21 Baseline BMI: No detail Baseline eating disorder scale score: No detail Baseline eating disorder scale score: No detail Baseline purging: No detail Comorbidity: Total: Depression = 3; OCD = 5; FBT: Depression = 2; OCD = 3; FBT + PPC: Depression = 1; OCD = 2 Details on living arrangements: Total: Intact family: 12; lived with sole parent (and no contact with other biological parent): 2 ; 2 lived with 1 custodial parent and had fortnightly contact with other parent; FBT: Intact: 8; separated (both parents): 0; separated (1 parent): 2; FBT + PPC: Intact: 4; separated (both): 2; separated (1): 4 Family education/employment/income: No detail Recruitment strategy: Patients admitted to hospital via casualty, presenting with protein calorie malnutrition and associated medical compromise. Exclusion criteria: No detail
Interventions	Setting of care: Outpatient (all participants had previously been admitted to hospital via casualty) Training/qualification of care provider(s): All therapists conducting these interviews had extensive experience, both in the Maudsley model (mean = 33 months) and generic family therapy (mean = 49 months). Specific training was also provided for the consultations (training was 3 hours, followed a structured interview protocol and included role plays) Treatment manual: Yes Supervision of treatment: No detail Adherence to treatment: No detail Intervention group 1 Description: Family‐based therapy (FBT) Maudsley approach. Length: 60 mins , 20 sessions. 20 hours. Duration (e.g. months, not reported) Intervention group 2 Description: FBT + parent‐to‐parent consultation (FBT + PPC) The technique of "parent to parent consultation" is derived from narrative therapy and involves a joint interview with new parents and parents who have completed treatment. New parents listen as the therapist interviews graduated parents, with the aim of circulating liberative stories. PPC is a practice that has the capacity to build solidarity between parents rather than explore and resolve any unique family dysfunction Length: 60 mins, 20 FBT session + 60 mins PPC (+ 10 minutes for parents to talk at the end without therapist present). 21 hours. Duration (e.g. months, not reported)
Outcomes	Eating psychopathology Morgan–Russell categories (Morgan 1975) Behavioural indices % IBW General Psychopathology and Obsessionality Patient distress was measured using the DASS Family Functioning Parental efficacy was measured using the Parent versus Anorexia Scale (PVA)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A list of random numbers was generated using SPSS random‐number generation process
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Therapists were given a sealed envelope containing the group allocations at week 1 of treatment
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	2 types of missing data: 1) participants engaged in treatment but temporarily unable or unwilling to complete valid measures: 3.6% (out of 501 observations 2) participants who dropped out of treatment, make an overt decision to stop responding to measures or complete treatment in less than 20 sessions. 38% missing for this reason; 13.3 % due to dropout from treatment, 11.3 % due to completion of treatment and 13.4% due to decision to stop responding to measures. 1) first type of missing data: LOCF 2) second type: analysis was restricted to 6 sessions after the consultation, resulting in a decrease in percentage of missing data in the poor outcome category, from 48% to 9.5%. This was seen as appropriate, given the analysis aimed to isolate any immediate effects of parent‐to‐parent consultations between sessions 3 and 5. Second, the remaining missing data were replaced by calculating the average score on all measures for each session
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Parental efficacy measured using the PVA and depression/anxiety measured using the DASS were administered weekly for all parents, but not reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Small trial