Table 58.
Family-based day treatment for children and adolescents with ARFID
| Certainty assessment | Impact | Certainty | Importance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| № of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | |||
| Change in Weight (assessed with: Pre/post % median BMI), Change in ED symptomatology (assessed with: Pre/post ChEAT scores) | |||||||||
| 1 | Case Control | serious a | not serious | not serious | serious b | none | One study of 32 patients with ARFID, compared to patients with AN (n = 68), BN (n = 15) and OSFED (n = 15) in the same DTP. Study reported that the reason for patients with ARFID to be admitted to their PHP was “acute onset of severe food restriction that results in significant weight loss or failure to gain weight.” LOS for ARFID was significantly lower than AN (7.03 +/− 3.38 weeks vs 11.94 +/− 4.21 weeks), but not BN or OSFED. Patients with ARFID gained weight from 86.21%MBMI (+/− 9.96) to 95.45%MBMI (+/− 7.96) which did not differ from the median weight gain for the AN or OSFED groups. |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW |
CRITICAL |
| serious a | not serious | not serious | serious b | none | Patients with ARFID had Total ChEAT scores that were subclinical at admission and demonstrated minimal change in scores during treatment. There were no significant differences between the diagnostic groups at the end of treatment on ChEAT scores. |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW |
NOT IMPORTANT | ||
Explanations
aNo control or comparison with no treatment, just patients in same program with other ED diagnoses
bConfidence intervals wide
Bibliography:
Case Control - Ornstein 2017 [278]